1951-02-06

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the governor in council to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada subject to the restrictions enumerated in the said measure.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like
to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he made a final decision with respect to acceptance or rejection of the invitation extended to him by the president of the general assembly of the United Nations to serve on the good offices committee with respect to oriental problems?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Along with the delegate
for India at the United Nations, Sir Benegal Rau, I was asked by the president of the general assembly if I would serve on that committee. The president, Sir Benegal and I had constituted, as hon. members know, the cease-fire committee. I believe Sir Benegal Rau has indicated that he would be unable to serve on the good offices committee. Therefore I informed the president that in view of Sir Benegal Rau's inability to serve possibly it would be better for him if he selected two new persons. However, he has asked me to reconsider the matter, and at the present time I am reconsidering it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether members of the house, particularly opposition members, will have an opportunity to examine in detail during this session the defence expenditures which he enumerated last night, either in the public accounts committee or in any other parliamentary committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I should probably answer the hon. member's question. There will be an opportunity for hon. members, including the members of the opposition, to examine in the public accounts committee all the expenditures that have been made. If the question refers to the estimates for future expenditures, there will be opportunity in the committee of supply to discuss these in detail.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, so many avenues of information, which are available to members of the cabinet, and particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), are closed to private members of this house that it is with some diffidence that they approach the question of foreign affairs. But it is no mean thing to be a free member in a free parliament, and to be able to exercise the freedom of speech which we enjoy. So far as I am concerned, my wish is that we may long cherish and preserve it.
Now, sir, it has occurred to me that every day the world grows smaller. As nations we live upon one another's doorstep, and we have not yet learned to do it in amity and in mutual understanding. The very closeness of
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knight contact which makes that difficult makes war global and the more disastrous. Its instruments can reach us without warning, overnight.
In our lifetime we have seen two wars, and many hon. members of this house have taken part in one or both of them. I think most of us have seen our sons-and some have lost their sons-in one of them. But even at that, we on this continent have no experience of the horrors of war as they have come to certain European nations: the horrors suffered by countries like Germany, France, Britain, Korea, or Russia-just to mention a few. We cannot hope for such immunity in another war. Thus it is the belief of every member of this house that the greatest problem of our day is the preservation of world peace. We wish for it devoutly, and indeed I think the peoples of every nation wish for it devoutly; but in spite of that we seem unable to settle our differences, and we drift and drift to what may be ultimate self-destruction. Indeed, the very instruments we create for the settlement of disputes appear to emphasize the differences rather than the agreements in the opinions of men.
I think the greatest deterrent to a condition of peace is the present division of the world into two and only two camps, built around two powerful nations-two great magnetic poles, as it were, attracting into their orbit all other nations, for ideological, economic or merely geographical reasons. Between the two is a great gulf fixed, and there seems no middle road. The fact that one of these powers has retired in surly reticence behind what we call the iron curtain, and does not permit its own people free intercourse with the western world, has added to the mutual fear and suspicion, as indeed have some of the ebullient and boastful statements of certain irresponsible people in the other.
In the state system which used to obtain in Europe, when a number of strong nations were divided into two camps, Great Britain, then a great world power, often achieved the preservation of peace through exercising what was commonly called the balance of power. The last war relegated Britain to a sphere of comparative unimportance, the status of a weak nation in comparison with either the United States or the U.S.S.R. Her voice at worst has been hushed by economic conditions, and at best has lost some of its authority; alone she cannot be a restraining influence. But in association with the other members of the commonwealth, Britain could be again a potent force in the preservation of world peace. Could she rally about her, 

as she did of old, the other component parts of what was known as the British empire- Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries which comprised that empire-then the strength which would be in such unity might yet be a sobering influence upon any nation which, drunk with its own power, might contemplate disturbing the peace of the world.
I come now to the question which has been disturbing us of late, namely, Korea and the Chinese intervention there. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) said the other day, and better than I could have hoped to do, many of the things which have exercised my mind.
We as Canadians have had little experience in dealing with the people of Asia. We must remember that a revolution is taking place, not only in Korea, not' only in China, but in all the countries of Asia. There is an intense desire on the part of these people to get rid of the exploiter, or foreigner- so far as many of them are concerned the terms are synonymous. While Americans are apt to blame the communists for all these troubles, the fact is that the ideological issue means little to the masses of those people. The demand is for bread, for equality, for a place in the sun, for a better way of life, for self-determination. The day will come, and perhaps before long, when the Asiatics will decide to run their own affairs and foreigners will have to give up their control or be forced out. We who fought a war in 1914-18 for self-determination of small nations and for democracy in general would find ourselves at a loss for good arguments against such a course.
The Labour government of Britain, a country old and wise in the ways of diplomacy, picked the psychological moment for retirement from India, and in such a way as to leave behind mutual esteem and good feeling. It is to be hoped that the present difficult negotiations will in no way interfere with that happy state of affairs.
The happy facility of the British in diplomacy does not appear to extend to our American friends. They are a fine and friendly people; they are splendid neighbours, as we have good reason to know; they are generous to a fault; they believe, as we do, in political freedom, but having said that, I must say that in my humble opinion they have made mistake after mistake in their dealings with Korea and China. It is easy for Asiatics to misinterpret their good intentions.
Since I am speaking in support of our amendment, which declares that the action

of the Canadian government in declaring China an aggressor was premature and unwise, I shall give as background a record of some of the mistakes.
For example, the Chinese people think of the United States as the nation which opposed their emancipation from the dictatorial and corrupt regime of Chiang Kai-shek, supplying him with arms which prolonged the civil war and resulted in thousands of deaths and in untold hardship to the Chinese, including their women and their children. They think of the United States as the nation which protected that leader in Formosa, the declaration of Cairo notwithstanding-a declaration to which, incidentally, the United States was a signatory.
The United States has consistently refused to recognize China and allow her to be seated in the council of the nations. That is a responsibility which the government of Canada must share, but one which this C.C.F. party does not share, since it has consistently advocated recognition, while repudiating the communist philosophy of the Chinese government.
One might argue that our present quarrel with China might never have arisen if she had been so seated in the United Nations, but the time to prove that is now past. When we consider the Korean sphere, the failure of the United Nations forces to halt at the 38th parallel would certainly be misinterpreted by many Chinese. The other day the minister simply and aptly described that line as the Rubicon. History tells us that while the crossing of the Rubicon was to the immediate advantage of Julius Caesar, it was the cause of his ultimate downfall. While it might have appeared necessary from the military viewpoint that General MacArthur should not stop at the 38th parallel, we thought that certainly he should have stopped very soon thereafter. That would have been a good time to call a cease-fire; that would have been an opportunity for what the Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted Mr. Churchill as describing as magnanimous appeasements, and a gesture of conciliation based on strength rather than upon weakness.
Apparently the minister was as much surprised as the rest of us, and as much surprised as were the Chinese, when the American general, on whose responsibility we have not learned, ordered that victory march right up to the Manchurian border. Can hon. members put themselves for a moment in the position of the Chinese on that occasion, crouching on the banks of the Yalu river? Most of those people are not learned in diplomacy. They know little or
The Address-Mr. Knight nothing about foreign affairs. I am sure most of them know nothing about the cause for which they are fighting, but they do know what it means to protect their homes. I ask hon. members to put themselves in the position of those common men of China, crouching there on the muddy banks of the Yalu, and watching the approach of that vast foreign army. What must they have thought? What would hon. members have thought had they been in that position?
Well, if we do not know what they were thinking, at least we know what they did. Even as they drove us toward the sea, we still refused to admit them to the only council in which we could talk with them as equals. Rather it stiffened our resistance, and we demanded that they appear not for consultation but for condemnation before a court to which we had consistently refused their admission on equal terms. Simultaneously we asked them for a cease-fire. What would hon. members have answered, had they been the Chinese, in the light of the background I have just described?
I have mentioned foolish and irresponsible statements on the part of Americans, which did not make for reassurance in the minds of the Chinese. There were:
1.	The famous Truman statement, later qualified, but undoubtedly expressed, to drop the bomb on China.
2.	The home-for-Christmas declaration of MacArthur, and the drive for the Manchurian line.
3.	The speech by an individual American in a responsible position about wiping communism out of all Asia,
4.	The threat to withhold United States wheat from the starving people of India, because of a difference of opinion between the United States and India on a phase of the Korean situation.
5.	The general tendency for the United States to allow certain prominent American military men to make political statements, if, indeed, not to dictate American foreign policy.
A casual observer might be tempted to think, from all these things, that the United States was deliberately trying to provoke a war with China. I do not believe that for one moment, but I do believe the American foreign policy is panicky and vacillating. We in Canada must be no mere satellite to anyone. I am aware of the coincidence of our opinion in many things with that of our American friends. I am aware the time may come when we may be very dependent upon their good will and very thankful for their strength and assistance. But I believe that at this time any blind subservience to their foreign policy on

The Address-Mr. Knight those.accounts would negate the whole principle upon which the United Nations is based.
We should-we must-have an independent foreign policy. We must not be dragged into a war against China, where our forces would be dissipated and we would be left helpless to defend our country, if that need should arise.
I do not believe that this upsurge of Chinese nationalism is necessarily favourable to Russian-Chinese alliances. There are many points of difference. They have totally different cultures. But we have done much to cement such an alliance. We have thrown the Chinese people into Stalin's arms; we have provided him with a great propaganda weapon by slapping the Chinese, not on one cheek but on two. At least in words, Stalin has befriended them and in my opinion we have played right into his hands.
Someone will say that some of the statements I have made today have been made before by Canadian communists. That may be so. Those people have spoiled many good causes by their very advocacy of them. They have certainly hurt the cause of peace in this country, to the extent that their screaming for it has rendered it unpopular. But I shall not fall into the trap of deviating from my beliefs, or my expression of them, because of what communists may think or say or do. That method has been only too successful in certain quarters in the past.
On the whole question I have come to certain conclusions, among which are the following:
First, the restoration and preservation of peace by agreement among the nations is at the moment the important thing. The saving of face is not the important thing. I am mindful of what war has done to the Korean civilian population. Liberation has been expensive for them, and it could happen to other populations. Let us get on with the negotiations.
Second, I do not believe that attack upon us is inevitable or, indeed, likely; but machinery, preferably under the United Nations, to prevent aggression, will have to be maintained. As long as part of the world is shut off from us and there is consequent darkness and mutual suspicion, we shall have to build our defences, lest our very helplessness may provoke such attack upon us. In the meantime it must be part of our task to allay the suspicion and fear that now exists, so that disarmament, the ideal condition, may at least become possible in our time.
Third, eventually, and soon, we shall have to abandon intolerance and ideas of racial superiority. We shall have to admit the


equality of human beings as such; we shall have to admit the right of Asiatics-nay, of people everywhere-to control their own destinies.
Fourth, just as a loss of freedom in. one part of the world is a threat to freedom as a whole, so hunger and poverty and injustice anywhere should be the concern of all.
Fifth, to this end we cannot expect forever to maintain our high standard of living while there are millions who have never had enough to eat. We shall have to learn to give, and to give without hope of return. We shall win friends, and we shall only win friends when to our gifts there are no strings attached, either political or military.
Finally, the opinion that I expressed before, that a third force in the world might have a moderating and restraining influence on world affairs, indicates that by mutual aid and co-operation we can strengthen the ties of friendship that exist between the members of the commonwealth.
I have not resisted the temptation, as did the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) in his touching address the other day, of prescribing for the ills of the world. What I have said has been a background for my support of the C.C.F. amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe that the condemnation of China as an aggressor at this time is a mistake. It is without meaning; nay, it makes a laughing-stock of the United Nations, unless it is followed by sanctions or other punitive measures, which could lead only to retaliation and then to open war with China.
As it is, I believe that public condemnation at this time is a mistake in that it may close the door on negotiations, may keep China indefinitely out of the United Nations, and may widen the already existing breach with Asia. The C.C.F. amendment suggests that the Canadian government made one mistake in branding China as an aggressor at this time. I urge that it do not now make a second mistake in agreeing that sanctions be applied against the same nation. That course may be the next step that the United States may advocate, but in my opinion it would close the door to peace with China and might lead, in progressive steps, to the world war which we all wish to prevent.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the few months since we last met, many things have happened, some inspiring and some discouraging. As tension grows between east and west we in Canada seem to find ourselves in a perpetual crisis. On every side we are beset by dangers and obstacles which are not of our own making, and about which

even we can do very little. In the midst of this dark and confused picture I feel that the highest tribute should be paid to the Canadian people for their calmness, their good sense and the unity they have displayed under all circumstances. By comparison with other countries, the people of Canada have borne themselves admirably.
By the understanding and patience of the people, the government's contribution to world peace has been made effective. We are not a house divided. I feel that the government is entitled to a full measure of support because of the manner in which it has handled international problems. If any one man is to be singled out for special attention he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Time and again he and his assistants have shown a faculty for doing the right thing when Britain and the United States have differed on questions of policy. Too few understand his difficult position. He is trusted by both the United States and Britain. He has to explain one to the other. He has to help compose their differences. He has always been the bridge between the United States and the commonwealth-and I do not mean a Duplessis bridge.
Canada's contribution to the cause of world peace has been a significant one. For that, as I have already said, the government is entitled to full credit. I heard it said the other day, by a man who should know what he is talking about, that we have in Canada 14 million of the most influential people in the world. The minister of external affairs, as Mr. Canada, is making this country's voice heard and influence felt at the council tables of the world. I think this house will fully agree with me when I say that he is doing a superb job, and that he has in large measure captured the imagination of the Canadian people.
I think we have reached our present position in Korea because the United States in particular has refused to permit the actual government of China to take its place in the assembly. I have felt that for a long time, but there is nothing we can do about it at the moment. The criticism has been made in this house that, by voting for the United States resolution branding China as an aggressor, Canada helped to shut the door on a peaceful settlement of the Korean war. An examination of the cold facts indicates that there is no validity in that argument. The door to understanding has not been slammed; it has not been shut; the door is wide open today, and there is a welcome mat on the doorstep inviting China to come in whenever she so desires.
The Address-Mr. Croll
There is no doubt that Canada did not welcome this kind of resolution, feeling that the prospects of settling not only the war in Korea but other important Far Eastern problems would be increased by exploring all other avenues before naming an aggressor. But once the resolution came before the United Nations this country could not do anything else in good conscience; we could not vote against the resolution. We merely called truth as our witness and acted accordingly.
There can be no denial that there was aggression. These volunteers came fully equipped with jet planes and tanks. There was a definite act of aggression, and Canada voted accordingly. But what the minister of external affairs did before the first political committee of the general assembly has been to some extent neglected by this house and has been hardly understood in the country. He understood full well that a tough United States resolution would result in a splitting of the unity of the free world. He bent his efforts toward achieving two objectives: First, the softening of the United States resolution to emphasize negotiation and place the punitive aspect in a secondary position; second, to persuade the United Kingdom and other nations that if this modification took place it would remove the barriers in the way of a yes vote. How successful the minister was is shown by the vote in favour of a greatly modified resolution.
If the United Nations is to serve the high purpose for which it was created, it is of vital importance that unity be shown in the face of a world threat to freedom. What else could Canada do? This country did not, as some suggest, play along with the United States because there was nothing else we could do. In his powerful address before the United Nations the minister described the resolution as premature and unwise. But, having said that, he did not depart from consistency when he said that Canada would vote for the resolution because this country could not disagree with the paragraph thereof which condemned communist China as an aggressor.
Let us not fall into the fatal error of believing that aggression will become more widespread because we face the realities of the world situation. If all our problems and confusions are to be resolved not by negotiation of differences but by force against force, then we must equip ourselves to the full, not only in a military sense but also in a spiritual and moral sense. We have made our position very clear to the Chinese communist government. We have left no doubt in their minds and in the minds of the Russians that the days of appeasement have
116	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Croll disappeared with the realization that appeasement breeds the very aggression it seeks to halt. In future we intend to lead from strength.
If the Chinese government reacts to this resolution as Chinese rather than as communists, they will regard the condemnation as involving loss of face. It will be a blow to their pride. This is serious, but it is not insurmountable. They can be made to understand that the very basis of the United Nations made necessary such action by the sixty nations represented therein. On the other hand, if they react as communists-and it appears that is what is happening-then they will shout and bluster; they will threaten one day and change their tune the next, as may suit their particular purpose.
It must be becoming very clear to the Chinese communists that they are not going to attain their ends by force. If they want to be given a seat in the United Nations- and that is what they desire above everything else; if they want to replace the pigmy nationalist segment that is there at the present time, then that can come to pass only by the settlement of the Korean and other Far Eastern problems on a basis acceptable to them and to the democratic world. When the time comes to revoke the resolution of censure and admit China to the comity of nations, we shall of course act accordingly.
We in this house are in a fortunate position in that we can second-guess the government and play Monday morning quarterback. After the government has made a decision we are in a position to pass judgment on it. I said earlier that our great strength was our unity. We have had a full discussion of this matter. It has been complete, and it seems to me that discussion is one thing and voting is another. After all, the differences among members of the house with respect to the particular policy expressed in the amendment is a trivial one. I think it should not be exaggerated or magnified in order to indicate that our differences are greater than they actually are. When the time comes I hope that we can avoid a vote on the amendment.
I should like to deal with another matter, arising out of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). It was a clear, concise and convincing statement of what the world of tomorrow may be like from Canada's point of view. He emphasized that we are committed under the North Atlantic treaty to do our share in the common cause; that we will stand together. Then he went on to translate that to mean that we shall be sending Cana-


dian troops to serve in the European army to be commanded by General Dwight Eisenhower. In that adventure we shall be full partners. Therefore it will become our duty to apply ourselves with others to the most perplexing question of Germany and German rearmament. Today for the first time Canada will be asked to help to find the answer to the German problem. It is a very old problem, and one which apparently must be answered by each generation in turn. During all my adult life we have been either arming Germany or fighting Germany.
All these decisions need to be taken in the light of the east-west cleavage, which is a real one. It is deplorable, but it is a fact and all our international thinking must be predicated on that fact. There are two important aspects of the question of German rearmament; there is the need, and there is the danger. First let me deal for a few moments with the need.
A good case may be made out for German rearmament. From a military point of view it may be a regrettable necessity. Nevertheless we must approach with the greatest caution the whole question of rearming Germany, and with the memory still vivid of what an armed Germany cost the world in blood and tears not so many years ago.
In girding ourselves against the threat of communism let us remember that not so long ago we regarded fascism as just as deadly a threat to our freedom. Therefore in putting arms into the hands of a people who still regard Hitler as having been unlucky rather than a scoundrel, let us take care that we do not create a Frankenstein as evil as the one hovering over the free world today from behind the iron curtain.
The existence of an armed east German force has doubtless been a factor in the decision of the Atlantic powers to consider the creation of a west German army as a part of an integrated European army. We may have to permit the rearming of western Germany precisely to the extent that the Russians arm eastern Germany. However, if we must rearm Germany on the advice of our military commanders, then there must not be moral disarmament. The west has already lost more than half the continent-a good deal of it by default, some by delay, but far more by appeasement. If we are to hold what little is left of Europe, as I believe we shall, we must make up our minds on certain fundamental issues. If Europe will defend itself, then we must be prepared to extend a very large measure of support when and as required. In his report General Eisenhower says there is a will and a desire on the part of western Europe to defend itself, and we are joining with them in this common undertaking. I

see no reason why we should not accept his assurance; but the statement he made on his visit to Germany, in which he suggested that we "let bygones be bygones," is not so reassuring. It seems to me that statement could well be construed as an apology for fighting against them the last time, or as an apology for the defeat we inflicted upon them. That sort of talk encourages the worst elements in Germany.
If it is decided that under the circumstances there is need for a strong Germany, that brings up the question of the danger of a strong Germany. History is too fresh in our minds for us to forget what happens when Germany becomes strong. Can we afford to chance it again without adequate precautionary measures? It is all very well to say that we are dealing with a different Germany, but are we? I believe we are still dealing with a people who are undemocratic and unrepentant, who consider themselves unfortunate, and whose chief object at the present time is to figure out the winning side and get on it. They think they can make a deal on rearmament, to the point of getting themselves out of the doghouse, and they believe we must agree on their terms. I remind the house that the west built up a democratic Germany in the twenties, only to find itself with Hitler's Germany on its hands in the thirties.
We are fighting communism today on a world-wide scale, with all our strength and resources. In doing so, however, we must make sure we do not bring back a form of fascism. I am not concerned with the question whether communism and fascism are the same or different. One thing basic to both is that they are living denials of human freedom and decency, and we are unalterably opposed to both. That decision must be irrevocable. Let me remind the house of a declaration made just five years and two days ago at Yalta:
"It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and nazism, and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world . .
Germany was to be permitted no armed forces, no general staff, no military equipment; nazi and military elements were to be "removed from public offices and from the economic life of the German people"; German industry that could be adapted to war production was to be dismantled or placed under international control. "Only when nazism and militarism have been extirpated" would Germany be received into the comity of nations.
As I have already indicated, I am content to leave the handling of external affairs to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs who have shown themselves to be statesmen in the broadest sense of the word. However, I do say that in approaching the German problem we must not let the need to rebuild and rearm
The Address-Mr. Croll Germany blind us to the inherent danger involved. Nor are our fears allayed when we read of the reappearance on the present scene of left-over and warmed-over nazi generals, and some of the manifestations of fascism. Ex-German generals, former nazi leaders and war criminals are starting to roll off the allied amnesty assembly lines like Fords in Windsor. The recent action of the United States and British military in releasing large numbers of convicted criminals makes the war trials appear a farce, almost a scandal. The French, who know the Germans best, have not done any releasing. They know full well that when you give a German a gun he immediately starts marching towards the French border.
A report in the Montreal Gazette of February 1 indicated that the Americans and British had made a general release of various convicted persons. The Americans had set free thirty-three, had shortened the sentences of thirty-six, and were reviewing the sentences of more than four hundred others. The British were reviewing the sentences of some two hundred and forty. For reasons of their own the French confirmed the sentences of all their prisoners, and were not reviewing any.
One of the men released was Alfred Krupp. I wonder if the Germans will rejoice at his release, so that he can start again to make munitions for them. It is interesting to see the British reaction. The pro-Labour Sunday Pictorial had this to say, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of February 5:
They opened the gates of a German prison yesterday, and they turned loose a man with blood on his hands . . . the blood of British soldiers, of Russians, of Americans and Frenchmen, of Poles and Dutchmen and Belgians; the blood of millions . . .
Who can believe that Alfred Krupp has any contribution to make to the problems of the present-day world?
It is a slap on the face for human decency that he is free today . . .
The Laborite Reynolds News also had something to say:
Times have apparently changed. Does murder cease to be murder when political circumstances change? Is Krupp, who starved and ill-treated in his factories thousands of helpless victims drawn from prisoner-of-war camps or seized as slaves . . . less guilty in 1951 than in 1948?
Then Lord Beaverbrook's Sunday Express carried a cartoon showing monstrous-looking war criminals filing out of prison. A sign on the wall said, "Please collect your weapons and cash on the way out." A British soldier is telling an American: "Now I suppose they will have us in court for wrongful imprisonment." Another newspaper carried an even more cutting cartoon showing two United

The Address-Mr. Croll States military policemen translating for a cringing nazi general, and one of them says, "He wants to know if he'll get his gas chamber back."
We in this country are having a little problem of our own. I notice from the press that Major General Kurt Meyer now wants to get out. He is tired of his confinement in Dorchester penitentiary. An article appearing in the Globe and Mail says that Meyer was originally sentenced to be shot, but the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. He was convicted in December, 1945, of responsibility for the deaths of eighteen Canadian prisoners of war at his headquarters in Normandy in June, 1944. The article goes on to say:
The youthful general was said at the time of his conviction to be the personification of German national socialism.
I picked up an editorial in the Windsor Star of February 1. It has this heading: "Meyer wants out," and reads in part as follows:
If it were not for counter-excesses allegedly committed by Canadian troops. S.S. Major General Kurt Meyer would now be dead, instead of appealing for clemency from Dorchester penitentiary . . .
Public opinion will not take kindly to the idea of releasing him. although that would not be a reason to hold him if he could establish his innocence. It would be easier to argue that a man so dangerous potentially, as a rallying point for the worst German elements, should be kept in protective custody until that danger is past.
For our own safety, and in the interests of the west as against the east, we may decide that it is necessary and advisable to rearm Germany. But it must be on our terms. I make this further point. It is one thing to put arms into the hands of Germans to fight on our side and to be disciplined by us, buf it is another matter to arm Germany in the way that she wants to be armed. I for one am not prepared to give Germany carte blanche in this matter. Either Germany is with us in the west wholeheartedly, or she is not in our camp at all. This is certainly no time for mental reservations, either on a personal or a national level. If we have any doubts about Germany's good faith, then the time to correct those doubts is now, before the wheels start moving; because once they start, I am not so sure that we shall be able to stop them again.
It is a mistaken view, held, I think, widely in this country, that the safety of the west depends upon German divisions. I would point out that the Germans are not the only virile people in Europe. Let me point out to this house some inherent dangers which must be considered by the government. It is possible that in rearming Germany we may start the Russians marching. The Russians


have threatened that course on many occasions. It is a calculated risk, and it may be worth taking; I do not know. It is also possible that if we rearm Germany, and if she is confident of herself, she may well try the military adventure of conquering eastern Germany in order to bring about the unification of Germany. That is understandable. She may well commit us to a course of action for which we have no stomach and no desire. There is also the possibility, unless we are in full control of the situation, that she may decide, after being rearmed, that she will join up with Russia; then our boys would be facing the very weapons that we sent over there. This is not a fanciful suggestion, because twice within the last twenty-five years Germany has done just that. I think we must make sure, so far as we are able to do so, whether Germans will fight for French, American and British people against their own countrymen in eastern Germany. In this possibility another risk is involved. If we build up a German army under the guidance of people such as General Guderian or General Speidel, we shall be getting the only kind of army those people know, namely a replica of Hitler's army. Surely we should have no use for those shoddy, left-over German generals. In Europe the Germans are still distrusted and feared. There is great danger in the policy of supporting anything so long as it is not communistic. What is bad, rotten, outworn and hateful should be tagged as unworthy of our support.
There is in this country much anxiety and uneasiness over the talk of revival of German military nationalism. The German generals have a great responsibility to history. They supported Hitler in his endeavour to destroy democracy in Europe, and in the unspeakable massacre of millions of innocent men, women and children. They have in the past shown themselves to be congenitally untrustworthy. German rearmament is a matter that will be subject to negotiation at a high level. I plead with the government to go slowly in this dangerous German adventure.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: In rising to take part in this throne speech debate, Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) upon the able manner in which they performed in making their maiden speeches in this house.
As to the speech from the throne itself, as has already been said it is rather vague and ambiguous but it does point out the grave danger of the international situation and the magnitude of the defence effort which necessarily has created an emergency situation. As to external affairs, we heard a detailed

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
account of events given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson); and with respect to the amendment before this house as to external affairs, my colleague the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) I thought did an excellent job and made our position clear in that respect. Last evening we had a lengthy discourse from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in which he pointed out the objective of a three-year program. He stated that it was the desire to have at the end of three years 148,000 personnel in the services. That was a real challenge both to the human and the material resources of this country. As to the program announced last evening by the Minister of National Defence, forecasting 148,000 men in the services at the end of the next three years, I should like to point out that, on a per capita basis, that is less than half of the effort already put forth by the United States of America or by Britain. The United States of America, with a population eleven times that of Canada, has a target for June of this year of 3,500,000 men in the services. To match the United States, on a population basis, Canada's program should be 318,000 men. Great Britain, with a population three and a half times that of Canada, had 1,023,000 men in her armed forces last October. To match Britain, on a per capita basis, Canada's program should be over 285,000 men in the services. I think it is well that we should keep that fact in mind, because throughout this country it is difficult at this time to get information.
I agree with the remark just made by the previous speaker, when he began his address, in which he said that the people of Canada were to be congratulated on their level-headed thinking in these times. I can tell you that throughout the province from which I come the people are wondering what this is all about. The men and women whom I have met in the streets in the cities and towns and the farmers have been extremely anxious as to just what is taking place in Canada' and are wondering what this is all about. They think they should have been receiving from the government much more detailed information than they have been receiving with regard to the expenditure of so much of the taxpayer's money, as to what it is spent for and as to what is required for the armed services.
The other day I received a copy of a newspaper article from a friend out on the west coast. It was taken from the Daily Colonist of January 14, and points out that the reserve army of Victoria is tragically undermanned. The city has only 580 men to defend it from attack. The article goes on to say that
after a detailed investigation over 3,000 personnel are required for the units there. That picture is very true of the reserve forces of the province from which I come. I know it is true of the many organizations in this province of Ontario today. I would be surprised if it is not the situation with respect to the reserve forces in every province throughout Canada at this particular time. With respect to both the United Nations and the defence of this country, it is very unsatisfactory at this particular time.
Turning to another matter which has been mentioned in the speech from the throne, with respect to production, I wish to deal with the matter of the five-year wheat pool following the last world war, 1945-50, and the contribution made by the farmers to the consumers of Canada and of Great Britain, and the money now owing to these wheat producers by the government of the day.
If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring the record up to date, because again these people find it very difficult to know just what the score is.
In discussing the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say on August 14, 1946, as appears at page 4810 of Hansard:
When we are at the end of the four-year period, if in the last six or twelve months we find ourselves in the position that world markets, so-called, are not offering as much for wheat as we are getting for it, I hope people will still stand behind us to the extent they are standing behind us now. Even if wheat stays above $1.55 during the whole period, I hope people will still feel that it was worth while trying. If we are successful in this experiment, then we can talk to the grain trade people with some assurance. If they are able to show us at the end of the five-year period that we were all wrong, that over that length of time the farmer got less than he ever got before under similar circumstances and that the other system would have brought him more, then we shall be in a position to discuss the matter with them on an even footing. I am sure anyone who has taken this position and finds himself wrong will be quite prepared to discuss it from that point of view. In the meantime we are convinced that this is the best thing for the farmer. As long as we are convinced of that, and having another four years in which to try it out, we can put the policy into effect in a way that will at least help us to determine how this long argument between farmer and grain trade in western Canada ought to be settled in the interests of the great masses of the people.
Then on August 15, 1946, as reported at page 4848 of Hansard, the minister put on record the details and terms of the contract. In one of the articles there is this statement:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
It is understood, of course, that the Minister of Agriculture received credit for having negotiated the deal at that time on behalf of the then minister of trade and commerce, the Hon. James MacKinnon. Then the Minister of Agriculture is reported at page 569 of Hansard of March 8, 1950, as follows:
What I wish to say to this house, and through the house to the country, is that the Prime Minister stated to the farmers that it was decided during the first discussion that every dollar the wheat pool was entitled to as a result of the British agreement would be paid into the pool by the end of this crop year, on the basis on which the British agreement called for the deliveries, and that therefore there would be no possibility whatsoever of any loss being taken by the farmers of western Canada as a result of that exchange. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada and any loss which is taken-if any loss is taken; and we do not expect that there will be any-would naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we get from the British under the "have regard to" clause rather than by the farmers themselves. I thought it was necessary that that matter should be cleared away at this time in order that we may avoid discussion of the idea in the future.
And remember, the end of that crop year referred to was July 31, 1950.
In discussing the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act on June 5, 1950, as appears at page 3221 of Hansard, I am reported as follows:
The Minister of Agriculture and the then Prime Minister repeatedly stated that the farmers who were making these sacrifices would have that taken into account for many years following the war. However, I take it there is to be no further settlement expected from Britain under that contract?


Mr. Howe:: That is correct.
Then, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, and other daily papers, of January 24, 1951, just the past month, the following appeared:
Gardiner at federation of agriculture meeting in Calgary announced reopening of wheat payment negotiations.
He said before he left Ottawa he and Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent had agreed that he should make the statement at this time.
Under clause 2 (b) of the four-year wheat contract now terminated Britain had agreed that there should be an adjustment.
During the parliamentary session last summer Right Hon. C. D. Howe said that Britain considered the matter closed.
Well, since then we have had some questions asked on the floor of this house. On January 31 the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the following question, as reported on page 7 of Hansard:
May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the wheat growers of the prairie provinces may expect the final payment under the five-year wheat pool, and whether the government has made up its mind what it will contribute toward making up the losses sustained by those farmers? If the amount has been determined, how much will it be?

The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied as follows:
I am not able at this time to make a statement regarding the five-year pool.
Then the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked a question and the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied as follows:
I am not able to make a statement on that subject today.
I then asked the Prime Minister the following question:
If I may ask a further supplementary question, could the Prime Minister say whether negotiations have been reopened with the British government in regard to a final settlement of the United King-dom-Canada wheat agreement and the five-year pool?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
I will not say that negotiations have been opened with the government of the United Kingdom in that regard, but representations were made as to what I thought was the view prevailing throughout the wheat-producing provinces of Canada, in regard to the fulfilment of all obligations under the four-year contract.
It would be interesting for us to know what representations have been made because I would imagine that the head of the Saskatchewan pool is pretty close to the federal Minister of Agriculture. They have asked that a final payment of at least 15 cents a bushel be made. They do not give any formula; they refuse to set forth any argument as to why it should be at least 15 cents a bushel. The Alberta pool has always asked for at least 25 cents a bushel; so have the united farmers and other organizations of the three prairie provinces. Therefore it would be interesting to know just what representations the Prime Minister may have made to the authorities in Great Britain. However, that does bring this case fairly well up to date.
Then, when the chairman and members of the Canadian wheat board, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is the responsible minister for the operations of the wheat board, appeared before the standing committee of the House of Commons on agriculture and colonization during the session of 1950-that is, the past year-some of us requested that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) be asked to appear and explain the "have regard" clause in the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. That is set forth in the minutes of proceedings of the committee. It was pointed out however by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that a minister could not be summoned to appear before a committee, with the result that we did not hear from the minister at that time in the committee.

This is set out in the proceedings at page 150. I shall not read it all, but I believe I have given the gist of it-and, if I am wrong, the minister is in his seat and can correct me. On the next page, under the heading of appendix "A", we find the following information given by Mr. Mclvor, in answer to a question:
Grain exchange dues appearing in Exhibit XVI (Report C.W.B.) amounting to $1,900, consists of the following payments paid to the Winnipeg grain
exchange:
1.	Annual dues on 4 memberships owned
by the Canadian wheat board at $250 each	 1,000
2.	Annual dues on 3 memberships owned
by employees of the board and used in conducting board business at $250 each 750
3.	Transfer fee of 1 membership	 50

4. Annual dues on 1 membership owned by the Canadian wheat board in the Vancouver grain exchange	 100
Total	 $1,900
That is interesting, in the light of the speeches one hears across the country, and the poison thrown around across the country about the grain exchange. I have always made it clear that I believe in the Canadian wheat board myself. However, I think people should be fair about the arguments they use, and not at times try to misrepresent the facts, as is done by some when they appear on the hustings.
The five-year wheat pool ended on July 31, 1950. During those five years the wheat producers delivered to the Canadian wheat board slightly in excess of 1,400 million bushels of wheat, at a loss, to date, of approximately 50 cents a bushel. That is the difference between the class II wheat quotations averaged over this period, and the price actually received by the farmers to date. Last year, according to the evidence, the board were deliberately underselling United States wheat, basis seaboard, by an average of 35 cents a bushel. This is all set out in the minutes of proceedings of the committee on agriculture.
Hon. members will understand that the international boundary line divides North Portal. American grain is marketed on one side, and Canadian on the other. On January 23 of this year while the Canadian farmer was receiving $1.23J per bushel for No. 1 wheat, his neighbour across the line in the United States was receiving $2.21. True, since then there has been added the 20-cent payment announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, thus leaving a difference at the present time, after that payment, of 77i cents.
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
The Canadian farmer has taken that trimming for five years. He is taking a trimming today; and I can tell the house that many farmers in the prairie provinces, through no fault of their own-and I am not blaming the government for this-have suffered heavy loss because of weather conditions. A great deal of the crop was frozen before being fully matured. Then the harvest season was wet, with the result that in many sections of the country the grain was not and has not yet been harvested. In other places, where it was harvested, it is still lying on the ground. This has meant great hardship for the farmers affected. At this stage many of them are not able to meet their obligations with the local storekeepers or merchants.
I urge the government immediately to assume its responsibility and to announce the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool at a rate of 25 cents per bushel. This amount would represent appproximately one-half the loss suffered by the wheat producers in marketing their grain under the compulsory system set up by the government. Those producers have no other alternative, and I say therefore that it is the responsibility of the government to help out. Even in the face of this I believe the western producer would be willing to assume half the loss. The government, which has the responsibility, should announce a final payment assuming the other half. As has been pointed out, it is essential to many of those farmers that the announcement be made and the payments made before seeding commences in the spring. There is great hardship in some sections of the country, as was pointed out in the debate yesterday.
I should like now to discuss the marketing, grading and transportation of the present 1950-51 grain crop in western Canada. As I said earlier, weather conditions for the harvesting and marketing of the crop were very bad. However, the grading and marketing of grain in many sections of the country was most unfair. In many cases a person having good grain was unduly penalized.
The distribution of box cars for the movement of grain was handled most unfairly throughout many districts of the west. There was and still is a very great shortage of box cars. As of January 1, 1951, the total of Canadian cars in the United States was 28,915, as against 13,873 United States-owned cars in Canada, or a difference of approximately 15,500 cars. One can imagine what that would do, even in the matter of storing grain on the tracks, let alone moving it.
On the day I left home an embargo was placed upon the movement of dried grain, including wheat, oats and barley, in western
122	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross Canada. It was the wish of the board to move out the damp and tough grain in an effort to bring it to the head of the lakes to have it dried. This has created hardship for the producer.
Western Canadian hard wheat is recognized as the best in the world. I have often heard people who should know make that statement. Our present members of the Canadian grain commission-and I would ask hon. members not to confuse that with the wheat board-claim that we have the best grading system. Well, the Canadian producer receives a great deal less for his wheat than do the producers in other countries-and it is the net return that usually counts with the producer.
I do not believe we have the best grading system in the world, and I am supported in miy view by Dr. J. Ansel Anderson of Winnipeg, chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners. In this connection I should like to quote a portion of his remarks before a gathering in western Canada, as they are set out in the Western Producer of January 18-and his observations were reported also in many other papers:
Grain Commission's Chief Chemist Suggests How It Could Be Done
A carefully-planned system for protein grading No. 1 and No. 2 Northern wheat was presented to western farmers last week by the chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners, Dr. J. Ansel Anderson of Winnipeg. Dr. Anderson introduced his plan at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Field Husbandry Association at Saskatoon. He described it as a "proposal" for grading wheat according to protein content and added that, in his opinion, protein grading in Canada was "strictly inevitable."
He went on to point out how this could be handled, and stated also that there was a higher market value for the product with the greater protein content. As I have said, this whole system unduly penalizes the man who produces a top-grade product, and that is a matter of some importance to the people of this country.
Referring again to the difficulties connected with the marketing of this year's crop, I would point out that I have never known such a variation in the prices of top grades. These have been totally unwarranted and most unfair. I do not wish to take the time of the house to read this long article, but hon. members who are interested will find it set out in the Grain Growers Guide and also in the Western Producer. It is of some importance and worth reading.
May I add further that there is wide variation in the protein content in different districts. In this connection the evidence of Dr. Geddes is to be found at page 115 of the report of the Turgeon grain commission, and it indicates that the protein content may vary


from 8 to 20 per cent. This is a wide variation, indeed. I believe it will be recognized by all that in the past fifteen or twenty years research has developed highly improved types of cereals. Great strides have been made in Canada for the benefit of the producers and for all other people in the nation.
I believe that this government should appoint a royal grain inquiry commission to investigate the grading, marketing and transportation of grain both in Canada and abroad. That is most essential in the interest of both the producers and the people of this country. The Sirois commission report points out that during the difficult 1930's, about which we have heard so much in this house, the production, storage, transportation and financing of wheat in Canada played a great part in supporting our economic system. I do not think there is any argument about that right across the nation.
Last year one-third of the value of Canadian exports was made up of agricultural products, and a great part of that was grain. That is most important to all parts of this country, and it is vitally important to the livelihood of those engaged either in production or in business generally throughout the three prairie provinces.
There exists today great discrimination in our income tax law which reflects upon the farmers of this country. I urge the government to permit capital depreciation for farmers on the same basis as that allowed to industry. I cannot understand why they are not allowed to operate on the same basis. During 1950 the farmers of Canada suffered a loss of over twelve per cent on income as compared with the previous year while the cost of everything entering into production was greatly increased and is yet increasing. During the same year of 1950 the cost-of-living index increased 11-5 points and is now at an all time high of 172-5.
In conclusion I urge the government, first, to eliminate the extravagant and wasteful expenditure of the taxpayers' money. There is so much of that today. This has been pointed out during the last two sessions of this house and I think that, at a time like this when we are to have increased expenditures, all possible waste should be eliminated.
Second, I urge the government to recognize their responsibility with respect to the five-year wheat pool 1945-50 and announce a final settlement to producers of 25 cents per bushel.
Third, I urge the government to appoint a royal grain inquiry commission to investigate the grading, marketing, transportation and storage of grain.

Fourth, I urge that in connection with income tax capital cost allowances for farmers shall be on the same basis as is allowed to industry.
I will support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), which reads:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present grave danger: and
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations; and
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, although the house has been in session for only one week quite a number of topics have been discussed and before our deliberations have been completed some time in the summer I expect that a greater number will have been dealt with. I was not happy coming to Ottawa to attend this session and I have found that same opinion expressed by many other hon. members. They feel that many important matters will have to be decided without the necessary information having been given to the members. I am fully aware that it is not possible to give us all the information, but it places those of us who have responsibilities to our constituents in a rather tough position when we have to make decisions without having all the necessary information.
As usual, the speech from the throne does not give us much detail of the matters to be brought before us although it does indicate that a number of important measures will be brought down during the session. Apparently most of our troubles are caused by the international situation and I think it is agreed by all hon. members that communism has a lot to do with the terrible international situation that exists today. Because I have not been privileged to get much of the information which has been given to other hon. members, particularly those who have been attending the sessions of the United Nations, I do not intend to discuss that matter. I shall leave it to those members of my group who have attended the sessions in New York.
I believe that one of the best things we can do to combat the disease of communism is to place our own house in order and keep it that way. While we have a democratic form of government there are still a number of iniquitous conditions existing in the country. The first thing we should do is to straighten out those injustices and give everybody a chance to live. Government policy as announced
The Address-Mr. Fair recently indicates that it is expected to bring 150,000 immigrants into the country during the present year. It would be good business on the part of the government to see that those immigrants are carefully screened and to see that no more of that disease which apparently is prevalent in our country is brought in by these people. In the case of those already here who are suffering from the communist disease I suggest that action be taken to cure their disease.
In connection with preparedness, which is causing some little concern throughout the country, many requests have been made by various branches of the Canadian Legion as well as by the dominion command to have something done. I believe most hon. members will support those requests. In fact, I think some of us would like to deal with other matters not mentioned in the requests made by the Canadian Legion.
I have particular reference to our financial set-up as it exists today. To a great extent our financial set-up is the lifeblood of our commerce and I submit that that is the first thing that should be effectively controlled and used by the government.
Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) made an announcement that a national advisory council on manpower would be set up. That is a move in the right direction. Last night the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made a statement in connection with defence. He told us what is to be done by the three branches of the service and also that the program would involve an expenditure of $5,000 million. That program looks good on paper, but many of us would like it better if the program were actually in operation. If the other fellow who has been preparing ever since the end of the second great war has time to play his part then I am sure it will be too late for us to get out and do things that should have been done before now. I am firmly convinced that only when the great masses of the people of Canada understand the basis of our prosperity and freedom, and understand and accept the fundamental truths in which we believe, will we have a secure foundation for peace, unity and prosperity. That statement applies to external affairs and particularly to conditions within our country.
As to the cost of living. Before coming to Ottawa for this session more people asked me about it than any other question. I am not at all surprised because I am quite well aware of the hardships being endured by many of our people. The physically incapacitated were having a tough time even before the cost of living rose to where it is today. Then there are the old age pensioners for

The Address-Mr. Fair whom the dominion government has provided 75 per cent of a basic pension of $40 per month. In my own province, and some others, certain other benefits are being provided. In Alberta we are providing an additional $10 per month without any means test as well as the services of all licensed practitioners within the province, and hospital care. It is estimated that this amounts to approximately $3.50 per pensioner per month. I believe Alberta is taking the lead over all other provinces in that regard.
There is another group of people between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine for whom something must be done in the very near future. The dominion civil service, and I believe the civil services of all the provinces, are compelling civil servants to retire when they reach the age of sixty-five. Many people working for the different governments are not in a position to draw superannuation. That means that just as soon as they reach the age of sixty-five they are thrown out in the gutter, and it is a case of "root hog or die". The health of many of these people has been broken down by work and the suffering to which they have been subjected in getting along so far in life.
On the question of old age pensions I have a quotation which may be fitting at this time. Hon. members should not be compelled to quote such things but I believe it fits the situation quite well. It reads:
In heathen tribes, where skulls were thick, did primal passions rage,
They had a system sure and quick, to cure the blight of age,
If one's native youth had fled, and time had sapped his vim,
They simply popped him on the head, and that was the last of him.
But in this, our enlightened age, we're made of finer stuff,
And so we look with righteous rage on methods so crude and tough,
So when our man grows old and gray, and bent and short of breath,
We simply take his job away, and let him starve to death.
It has been suggested that is Liberal policy, and I do not think any Liberal will try to get away from it because ever since I came here some 15 years ago we have tried to have something more suitable done for the old age pensioners. On one occasion a few years ago the question of increased pensions for the aged was under discussion, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said that the pension was never intended to take full care of our old people. With many of them without any financial resources I wonder how he expected them to provide for that part of the cost of their living not covered by the pension.

In addition to the old age pensioners and prospective old age pensioners, there are a number of others receiving small amounts by way of superannuation or pension as well as a number of people who are in the low income brackets. For instance, many of our store clerks start to work for as low as $14 per week. I think hon. members will have quite a difficult mathematical problem to solve if they try to figure out how such people are going to buy their food and clothing, pay room rent and so on. These matters should be dealt with.
Here in Ottawa, as in all other parts of the country, we have our civil servants. Many of them are still receiving low salaries. Many of them are married men or married women with families. How are they expected to carry on? Many people believe that the farmer is to blame. I want to deny that with all the power at my command. In the Novem-ber-December issue of the Labour Review there is an article at page 247 by Mr. Zenon David, president of the Canadian Federation of Labour. At the bottom of the second column he has this to say:
The government is in the grain business, the government is in rent control, the government is in marketing control. The government is in the gasoline business, and today, in some provinces, the tax is as high as half the price of the gas. The worker goes to buy honey; there is a support price. He tries to buy butter; there is a support price. The cost of living is up because of the subsidies, or support prices.
I want to deny that because it is not correct. If this gentleman would take the trouble to ascertain the facts I think he would realize that butter and honey have not cost the government anything for the past number of years. It is true there are support prices for those commodities but the advantages other occupational groups enjoy by way of tariffs and other devices are much greater than those enjoyed by agriculture. Continuing he says:
This is to keep the farmers happy. Maybe these things do. But everybody has to pay for these subsidies, including the farmers themselves, who seem to like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
In this morning's Citizen there is a report of an address by Mr. McMillan of Huntingdon, Quebec, to the Rotary club meeting at the Chateau Laurier yesterday. Mr. McMillan is the president of the dairy farmers of Canada. He is reported as saying:
Since 1939 many of the things that enter into the cost of living index have increased one to two hundred per cent and yet there is less outcry against these. Wages for an hour's labour will buy more milk today than ever it did before.
The article continues:
Declaring that milk production per capita in 1950 was 20 per cent less than in 1942, Mr. McMillan told his hearers, "In an area not far from

Ottawa a government survey has shown that the average producer faced a loss of $174 on his milk production after allowing him only 50 cents per hour for his labour."
What other occupational group today is working for 50 cents per hour? When a person works on a dairy farm, believe me he is not playing around as many of oui workers are today and by so doing causing the price of our goods to rise and thus the cost of living. In many cities across Canada there has been an increase in the price of bread. I have an article here showing that out of a 13 cent loaf of bread the farmer's average share in 1949 was only 2-3 cents, or 17-9 per cent of the retail price. Taking the average of 1935 to 1949, the farmer's share of the retail price of certain commodities was as follows:
Per cent
Potatoes	 57-3
Eggs	 73-7
Fluid milk	 43-4
Creamery butter	 68-9
Cheese	 31-2
Beef	 60-3
Wheat flour	 36 0
Canned tomatoes	 17 0
I believe anyone looking at these figures will readily realize that someone between the farmer and the ultimate consumer is getting the rake-off, and I hope to have a little more to say about that before I conclude. To show that conditions are exactly the same across the line we have a statement by Mr. John W. Sims, general manager of the Farm Bureau Co-operative Association of Columbus, Ohio, who states that in 1950, out of an average 14J cent loaf of bread, the farmers received only 2.4 cents, while the year before they had received 3 cents from the average 13 cent loaf. At the present time producers are getting only 47 cents out of the consumer's dollar, whereas a year ago they were collecting 55 cents.
According to the Edmonton Bulletin of January 5, only a month ago, during November the nation-wide cost of living index rose by .4 to a new high of 171.1. The statistics agency said that the Canadian cost of living rose a total of 10 points during the first eleven months of 1950, and that it had climbed by 69.7 per cent since August, 1939. That did not take into account a statement published on January 4 in the same newspaper that the price of eggs had dropped by 18 cents per dozen. That was not mentioned by our friend Mr. David. Then, before we had time to more than turn around, in the Ottawa Citizen of February 2 we were told that living costs had zipped yet higher, and that during the month of December living costs had increased by another 1.4 points to an all-time high of 172.5. Prices were higher for
The Address-Mr. Fair meat, butter, vegetables, fruits, men's wear, furniture, blankets, carpets, telephone rates, laundry, coal, health care and barbers' fees. Before I leave that matter, I believe there should be some adjustment in those fees. As we look around this house and many other places we find that a number of the clients of the barber shops have only a little fringe left to clip, but still have to pay the rate of 75 cents. I believe there should be an excess profits tax in those cases. The article goes on to say that there were also increases in the prices of gasoline, streetcar fares and newspapers. The general trend today seems to be to boost prices. It would almost seem that some high officials here in Ottawa have said, "We are going to have a freeze on prices one of these days. The sooner you get your prices up, the better able you will be to take advantage of that increase."
As far as farm living costs are concerned, I have an article from the wheat pool Budget of October 13 last, which states that since 1939 farm living costs have increased by 77 per cent, farm wage rates by 245 per cent, farm machinery by 60 per cent, binder twine by 227 per cent, gasoline and oil by 51 per cent, fertilizer by 46.7 per cent, equipment and materials by 100 per cent, building materials by 128 per cent, and hardware by 65 per cent. The index for farm living costs as at August, 1950, was 180.7, while urban living costs were 168.5. Farm equipment and materials stood at 194.3 and farm labour at 215.7. I had intended to deal further with this matter, but since time is slipping by I shall let it go for now and perhaps deal with it a little later on.
In my opinion high labour costs, exorbitant dominion government taxation and excessive mark-ups are mainly responsible for our high cost of living today, and until these things are remedied we will have to put up with what we have suffered in the past. Most people, including myself, resent price and wage control in peacetime, but present conditions demand that action be taken if our people in the lower income brackets are to survive. And as I have already indicated, a freeze of prices at today's levels will not entirely overcome the difficulty. We find that in the United States they froze prices but a few days later commenced to fix certain margins for the different people who handle goods all down the line, and I believe something like that will have to be done if we are to overcome the problem in this country.
In the speech from the throne we are told that we will be asked to approve substantially increased expenditures for defence. That means, of course, that we shall also be asked to approve higher taxation. In my opinion, under no circumstances should the

The Address-Mr. Fair present income tax exemptions be lowered, or the levy increased on those in the low income brackets. That, I believe, can readily be understood by anyone doing even a little thinking. People must eat and they must have a place to live. In that connection I say the present inequitable rental levels should be investigated. Some places are being rented for perhaps less than they are worth today; some are being rented at depression levels, but many others are being rented for twice what they are worth. Those things should be looked into and levelled off.
During the last war taxation caused a great deal of absenteeism, and since the war many of our farmers have been easing up on production. During the war the farmers worked all the hours they could in order to produce food for Canadians and send some overseas to our allies. They entered the fighting forces; they sent men and women into the factories, and at the same time paid their full share of the war costs. Then the income tax branch sent their police into the field, and many of our farmers are not yet back to normal after the grilling they were given. By that method the government collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from farmers which in my estimation they never should have been asked to pay. The men sent into the field were bookkeepers, trained in that work. In most cases farmers are not bookkeepers. Rather than go to court and assume expenses they were unable to pay, many of them went to the bank and borrowed the money with which to pay the amounts they were charged.
An example of the lowering of production can be found in the case of hogs in my own province. Last year our hog marketings amounted to less than one million head, whereas during the peak years we marketed more than three million head. We are all aware, also, that we did not even begin to fill our contract with Britain last year for 70,000,000 pounds of bacon. So I believe the government will have to reconsider its high taxation policy if we are to get the production we expect will soon be necessary in this country.
Last year in my part of the country we had one of the toughest crop years in history, to begin with. There was no subsoil moisture in the spring, and for a couple of months there was not even a shower of rain in many districts. In June we did have some showers, and the crop made an almost miraculous recovery. As a result, by the middle of July the farmers felt they were going to reap one of the biggest crops they had harvested for many years. Then they went to bed one night; when they woke up in the morning they found their crops had been frozen. Such

are the fortunes of the farmers in the prairie provinces. That did not occur only on one night. We had three successive frosts within ten days. By the time the frost had completed its job, the farmers found their yield cut by several bushels per acre, possibly by 25 per cent or 30 per cent, and the grade cut down from what normally would be No. 1 northern or No. 2 northern to No. 5, No. 6 or feed in many cases. That is the condition. I might say that while the initial price of No. 1 wheat was set at $1.40 per bushel, the initial price of feed was only $1 per bushel, netting the farmers in my part of the country 82 cents at the elevator. That will give the people some idea of the things that our wheat growers and the farmers in general are up against.
Then they were just beginning to get accustomed to the frost conditions, many of them adjusting their anticipated returns in order to pay off a little bit here and there. They had just barely started harvesting when, on September 25, we had a break in the weather, after one week of decent harvesting weather; and since that time there has not been one day that was fit for either harvesting or threshing. In my part of the country we have at least 50 per cent of the crop lying under the snow today, either in the stook, in the swath or, in many cases, not even touched. People have commenced to use the combine there, and the conditions that I have described have made an extremely tough year for our farmers.
I had intended to deal at some length with the initial payment on last year's crop. When this cut was made from $1.75 down to $1.40, I felt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had made quite a mistake. We tried here on one occasion to have that initial payment increased to $1.75; but with the help of its supporters the government was able to turn back our attempt. Perhaps they will not be quite so well satisfied now when they find that in spite of their judgment, and in spite of the government's judgment, the Minister of Trade and Commerce recently announced an interim payment of 20 cents a bushel on wheat, 10 cents a bushel on oats and 20 cents a bushel on barley. That interim payment will help to some extent. But in spite of the fact that the cost of living and the cost of practically everything we buy is going up, we find that the international wheat agreement, which is in effect for another two-year period, helps to reduce our farmers' returns. We are compelled to take a decreasing price for our wheat; and if the people who have contracted to buy our wheat do not feel like taking it, the agreement is only a gentleman's agreement anyway, and they can

go elsewhere-to Russia, Argentina or somewhere else-and buy their supplies of wheat.
The interim payment that I spoke of a moment ago will be quite a help to those farmers who were able to thresh and to deliver some of their grain. But for those who have not been able to thresh or combine grain and deliver it, there is little comfort in that payment. It leaves those people who did not have any grain threshed badly in need of the final payment on the five-year pool, 1945 to 1949, both years inclusive.
Many people still seem at a loss to understand why the farmers claim some compensation under that agreement. It must be readily understood that out of the 1946 crop, according to an agreement made between the Canadian government and the British government, Canada was to supply to Britain 160 million bushels of wheat at a price of $1.55. During that crop year the wheat board-for which I have the highest regard and which I shall support as long as I am here, knowing the difficulties and the losses that the grain exchange got us into in the past-was able to sell grain to countries other than Britain, for which they received $2.43 per bushel, which made a net loss of 88 cents a bushel on wheat that was sent to Britain. That means that any farmer who delivered 1,000 bushels for delivery to Britain had an immediate loss of $880. If he delivered 2,000 bushels, his loss directly on account of the agreement was $1,760. If he delivered 3,000 bushels, as many farmers did, he accepted a loss of $2,640.
In the next year we were again expected to deliver and did deliver 160 million bushels at $1.55 a bushel, according to the agreement. That year the wheat board sold class II wheat again to countries other than Britain, at an average price of $2.88 per bushel; so that the farmers again had to suffer a loss of $1.33 per bushel. To bring this situation nearer home, it means that the farmer who delivered 1,000 bushels for delivery to Britain suffered a loss of $1,330 right off the bat. If he delivered 2,000 bushels, his loss was $2,660; and if he delivered 3,000 bushels -and many of them delivered far more than that-his loss was $3,990. Yet many people ask us why the farmers are coming to the government begging for some more money. Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone in this house or in Canada to feel that the farmers have ever begged the government for anything. But if by various methods they had not been robbed-and I use the word "robbed" advisedly-of the things they produced in this country, they would not be in the financial position in which they find themselves today in many parts of the country.
The Address-Mr. Fair
In 1948 we had agreed to deliver 140 million bushels, and the same in 1949, at a price of $2 per bushel. In 1948 the price for class II wheat was $2.23 a bushel. I am not able to give any figures in connection with the 1949 crop because those figures were not available the last time I asked for them, but I hope to get them in the near future. In addition to that, while by government contract we subsidized the people of Britain, we also subsidized the people of Canada in order that they could eat cheap bread for several years past. The loss sustained on that account and the loss sustained under the British wheat agreement in my opinion runs up fairly close to $600 million.
In speaking to the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates in Regina a couple of months ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that it would cost $14 million to pay one cent a bushel on the wheat during the five-year period. That is quite a good deal of money. But he did not say that payment of that amount would be borne by all of the people of Canada. He also neglected to point out the loss that the few thousand wheat growers in the prairie provinces will have to suffer as the result of that subsidizing of the British people and of the Canadian people.
Apparently the government is still negotiating with Britain. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) mentioned questions that I had asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce, questions that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) had asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce and questions that he himself had asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); but with respect to which we were unable to get any particular information. In my opinion we should not, under the terms of the agreement, have asked Britain to pay a great deal. As for myself and those with whom I am associated here in the house, we believe that the job of making up those losses belongs to the people of Canada. At the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking to the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates, or during that week anyway, a Liberal convention was held in Saskatoon, another city in Saskatchewan. At that time the leader of the Liberal party in that province, Mr. Walter Tucker, who was at one time the member for Rosthern, suggested to the convention that negotiations be reopened with Britain with respect to the "have regard" clause; and later in the convention a resolution was passed demanding that, and saying that if Britain did not make good, then the responsibility fell upon the Canadian government. Therefore I feel that we are in the company
128	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair of at least the Saskatchewan Liberals in demanding the repayment of the losses that we are pleading for here today.
At our convention held in Regina on October 18, 19 and 20-the convention of the Social Credit Association of Canada-a resolution was passed demanding that every dollar of this loss be made good out of the Canadian consolidated revenue fund.
I have read in the papers about the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), either or both of them, addressing delegates to the Alberta wheat pool convention in Calgary, the farmers' union of Alberta in Calgary, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also in Calgary; but in every instance not. much information was given. Before I leave this perhaps I had better state that I believe our farm leaders-I do not like to use this language-were just a little bit easy in dealing with this whole question of making up the losses. This is a business proposition, and the welfare, in fact the security, of a lot of the farmers in the prairie provinces is dependent upon the payments that will be made in this instance.
Facts that are not frankly faced have a habit of stabbing us in the back. That may possibly be worth thinking over. Conditions at the present time would indicate that in the very near future farmers may again be called upon to supply sons to fight Canada's battles on the battlefields of the world. They may also be called upon to supply sons and daughters to work in our munitions factories; they may be called upon to supply daughters to enlist in the three services, as was done in the last war. We may be asked to produce more and more food for ourselves and for our allies overseas. The conditions that have existed in agriculture up to the present time have been responsible for driving, and otherwise getting, 84,000 of our farm workers into the industrial centres during the past year. Perhaps this is worth thinking over also, because we should not have such a condition as that in agriculture in this country at the present time.
In connection with this final settlement on wheat in the 1945-49 wheat board pool, unless the farmers are treated properly they will not be so ready to respond to the government's request as they did in the last war. I am not suggesting that the farmers are going to do that, but do not forget that the farmers have a conscience. They demand a proper share of the production for which they are responsible in this country. Only during the years from 1915 to 1919 have the farmers ever received a proper share of the national income.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in entering this debate there are certain aspects of our defence situation which possibly have not been touched upon previously and that at the present time are not thoroughly understood by the Canadian people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
For a long time during the second world war different Canadians had occasion to say: "Well, it can't happen here." Consequently when today they are pondering in their minds the rather staggering figures that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) presented to this house in such an able manner last evening, they may be wondering just why this great expenditure of the taxpayers' money.
As I rise to take part in this debate I have two ideas in mind, one dealing with the question:	"It can't happen here," and the
other with the economics of our defencespending program. It is quite easy for a great number of people to understand what happens to their pocketbooks when taxation becomes heavy. That is a more understandable proposition with the great mass of Canadians than to say that our expenditure for, say, the construction of a certain type of aeroplane is $400,000; because to many of those within the range of my voice that is an astronomical figure.
Before I go further with the points that I have outlined I should like to say how pleased I was that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was batting substantially on our side yesterday.
I should also like to pay my respects to the remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) who, as hon. members know, has a most distinguished war record. He was a colonel when I was a rear rank buck private in the first world war. At that time my highest ambition would have been reached if I could have attained half the number of medals that General Pearkes had. If I could have obtained them I would have been satisfied, but I never obtained any of them. I trust I may be excused, sir, if I refer specifically to his remarks about the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I might also be pardoned if I make this statement:	I was one of five brothers who
served all during the first world war. One of them was more or less a poet. He was then living in the United States of America, which at that time had not entered the war. He composed a little poem, of which I shall quote only one verse. I do so, sir, not only in honour of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, but in honour of all our armed services who were serving and have served in all parts of the world.

That little verse went something like this:
Tell me, Canucks, who are these Pats?
Who are these boys In the broad-brimmed hats?
Who are these soldier lads off to the front Eager to bear and share in the brunt?
Quick to respond to Canada's call Smarting to fight and ready to fall?
Why, those are the boys of the regiment that Is Canada's glory-the Princess Pats.
My reference a few minutes ago to the statement, "It can't happen here" was prompted by a document I have before me which, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on record. It is an exact copy of the Hitlerian edict that eliminated the independent non-state church in Germany in 1933.
Dictators, whether of today, fifty years ago or a thousand years ago, are ostensibly one and the same thing. A definition, the author of which I cannot name, states that a dictator is any man who claims to have power over the conscience of man and, having that power, if he could, would usurp the kingdom of God. We have today in the world the type of individual we had in the years immediately preceding and subsequent to the termination of the second world war.
It is because of this fact that I wish to place this document on record, so that it may give an insight, in the minds of those who hear and read, to the fact that what happened in 1933 with respect to Christian tenets of faith in Germany can happen here, provided we are not prepared to spend our dollars in defence of our freedom and our belief in the Christian faith.
This document is in these words:
The Program' of the National Church (Reichskirche) of Germany
1.	The national church (Reichskirche) of Germany claims with all clearness the exclusive right and the exclusive power on all churches within the boundaries of the German empire. These churches will be nominated "national churches of the German Reich."
2.	The German people is not supposed to serve the national church of the German Reich, the national church of the German Reich has to serve exclusively and solely to one doctrine "people and race."
3.	The territory for working and activity of the national church of the German Reich will be marked' by the territorial empire and colonial frontiers of Germany.
4.	The national church of the German Reich will not force any German individual, to join, she is, however, willing to do everything within her might, to get hold even of the last German soul. Other churches or similar institutions and associations may and will not be tolerated in Germany, especially if they are internationally bound or directed.
5.	The national church of the German Reich has decided to eradicate unalterably and with all necessary means the Christian faith, which was imported in the disastrous year 800 into Germany, which was
The Address-Mr. MacDougall pressed on the German people, although it was against its nature and not identical to its character.
6.	There will be not allowed any fundamental changement in the construction of the existing church buildings because they represent German national property, German culture and a part of the historical growing of our German people. They will not only have the value of the German national property, but they also must be preserved.
7.	In the national church of the German Reich there will be no scribers, ministers, chaplains and clergymen, but only public speakers of the national church of the German Reich.
8.	The celebrations of the national church of the German Reich will take place at night and not in the morning, that is to say on Saturdays, at splendid illumination.
9.	In the national church of the German Reich men and women, boys and girls will acknowledge unanimous God and His immortal works.
10.	The national church of the German Reich insists firmly upon her unfailing fusion with the state. She has to subordinate herself to the state as a serving member.
11.	On the strength of this fusion she demands an immediate delivery of all territorial property of all churches and confessions to the state. She interdicts, also, that in future the churches will not be allowed to own the smallest part of the earth, or that such a part will be given to them, for the churches do not conquer, defend and build the German estate and soil, but only the German people: "The State".
12.	The national church speakers will never be chosen among those who constantly talk today with malice 3Ud tricks in words and writing about the absolute necessity and maintenance of the Christian doctrine in Germany, for they not only deceive themselves but also the German people and only on account of their position and their "sugar bread".
13.	The national church speakers will officiate as German state officials after the law and state-officials.
14.	The national church of the German Reich demands the immediate stoppage of the printing and publishing of the bible within the boundary of Germany as well as some more publishing of Sunday papers, writing, readings of church-similar character.
15.	The national church of the German Reich has to superintend with all severity at that, and she has to take strictest measures that the holy bible and other Christian religious scriptures cannot be imported to Germany.
I believe it is well that the people of Canada should have this authentic record of what dictatorship has done in one of the former great states of the world. That should be some indication to the people of Canada, whether within or without the halls of parliament, that what has happened in Germany can, save by the grace of God, happen to the people of Canada. I am sure, sir, none of us wishes to see that occur in this beautiful land. It has been our good fortune that the Almighty has placed us geographically whereby, in two world holocausts, we have avoided the actual bombings and carnage of war, and have suffered only the loss of our dear ones on the fields of battle.
I believe it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, many years ago, in describing the geographical boundaries of Canada, said: "It is
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacDougall bounded on the north by gold; on the west by the east; on the south by friends and on the east by history." Certainly that describes our geographical position. How fortunate we are. Right here I should like to say that I believe earnestly the countenances of our Canadian people should be a great deal more smiling than they are today. So many people that we meet seem to think that we are being hard done by. Our cup is running over and yet we are not satisfied. In this time of world chaotic conditions it would seem to me that we individually and collectively would profit ourselves by the recognition of the fact that we have been favoured under Providence and that a smile on our lips would be a great national emblem for us to bear no matter where we may be, whether at home or abroad. Certainly sugar draws more flies than vinegar. I think we should all practise for ourselves and preach among our neighbours that the happy heart is a treasure to possess and also a treasure with which to associate.
Coming now to the scope of our national program and its economic problems I should like to quote, something which I do not like to do but which I have done quite consistently today, an editorial that appeared in a small British Columbia publication known as the B.C. Financial Times. I do not suppose that many easterners have heard of that publication. In its issue of January it had what to me was a very sound and sensible article with respect to our national defence spending. I should like to quote this as it will take only a matter of five or six minutes. It reads:
The essence of the economic problem is the release of heavy and sustained government expenditure of an unproductive character on a situation where factors of inflation are already active. This has to be recognized as a continuing state of affairs, though quite unlike the intensive effort of 1940-45 when every normal activity was subordinated to winning the war. Open war may come; but if it can be avoided, these conditions will probably go on for years and we have to decide how we can live with them and survive them most advantageously. It has been well said that one of democracy's difficulties is that the future has no vote, so that the national interest is too easily identified with what the majority of people want here and now. Our problem is that most people are going to want things that cannot be provided in these circumstances.
Objectives of Policy
The policy required to meet this situation must embrace two objectives: (1) increased production; and (2) economic stability.
I am happy to say that the government has recognized that fundamental fact.
These are inseparable. Stability means an underlying balance between spending and supply. Defence supply will certainly get priority. Consequently, civilian supply may or may not be reduced


long-term, but civilian demand will be much augmented by transfusion of government expenditure and this will happen at once. Two lines of approach are therefore necessary.
The government is also cognizant of this.
The first is to continue to increase the production of civilian goods. The second is to channel excess purchasing power out of the market by taxation and saving.
Inflation is our opponent's secret weapon. It was Lenin who invented the slogan, "Debauch the currency first." Our defence therefore has two fronts. If we ignore the internal front of production and stability, the external front will prove to be another Maginot line.
At first sight there may seem to be a choice of two methods. One is to impose direct controls over prices and wages, and to allocate resources by government direction. The other is to encourage the vitality of an open economy, relying on its productive power and allowing the price system to do its work properly, protecting it from inflation and distortion by means of the indirect method! of fiscal and monetary control.
There is really no choice. Comprehensive direct controls would defeat the purpose in the following ways:	They would drive the economy into a
regime of black markets and administrative paralysis; would destroy public morale and the incentive to produce, and would conceal inflation without preventing it. They would in any event require crushing taxation to be practical at all.
The method of control, is, of course, necessary in order to allocate scarce materials to direct defence production. Its use in Canada will depend largely on what is done in the United States, in view of our joint supply arrangements with them. But there may be little need of formal apparatus in this country, provided that we succeed in the main object of controlling inflation at the source and can impress the American authorities with the vigour of our determination.
The second course indicated above spells control in an entirely different sense. It means that we can have a free economy so long as it does not run out of control. More particularly, it means that the government must conduct its budgetary operations in such a way that they add the least amount of fuel to the inflation process and exert a stabilizing influence upon it as far as possible. The indirect method of fiscal and monetary policy is therefore not only the right prescription, but it also offers the only assurance that the alternative of full "controls" can be avoided.
I should like in a word or two to express my opinion of the soundness of that editorial. If I may, I should also like to add my commendation of the government for the sane practical manner in which they have dealt with the present crisis while in some other countries hysteria has run rampant. We have heard a considerable amount of criticism of our reserve forces. I do not think that even the minister would say that he was entirely satisfied with the situation with respect to the reserve forces. We can and must continue to attract a greater number of our men and women throughout the country to the ranks of the reserve army.
There is something more I might add with respect to this matter. No one in this house, no one on the North American continent or in any of the other free countries of the

world knows when Uncle Joe may pull the trigger. The best that can be said for all our planning is that we may, by good fortune, be ready with our maximum endeavour at the time that is most emergent. I do not know whether he might pull the trigger in 1952, 1954 or 1956. That is in the lap of the gods. But I do know that, if this twilight cool war should not break into a flaming, open, shooting war, in all probability some time will elapse before the emergency becomes completely and utterly emergent in its fullest sense. Therefore if a period of years should be given to us to strengthen ourselves so that the potential aggressor will be rather shy of putting out his jaw for a haymaker it would seem to me that we could utilize most advantageously Canada's three services, the army, navy and air force, and additional endeavours could be made with respect to the recruitment of cadets in these various services.
As in the first world war, modern war is a young man's game. That is an accepted fact in practically all the countries of the world. When that is realized I think it is correct to assume that any additional enticement that we and the government of Canada may be able to offer for increased enlistment in cadet training will eventually pay off most handsomely for all the people of this country in a dire emergency.
Many of you within the range of my voice knew and loved as I did the old padre of the first world war, Canon Scott. The third time that I was wounded, I remember, Canon Scott came to my bedside on his horse over shell holes for a distance of twelve miles, not particularly to see me but to see three of us who were lying in a dressing station. One was a Protestant, one was a Roman Catholic, and one was a Jew. They were members of my battalion which we jokingly referred to at reunions as the fighting 46th that never took a trench and never lost one.
Since those days Canon Scott has passed to his last reward. I thought I should like to pay my tribute to that great Christian gentleman in ending my dissertation by utilizing a little verse that he wrote. In it he used the word "rest" but I am going to substitute the word "peace". I think this verse is a fine motto for us in these troublesome times and that we should think of the things that are beyond dollars and cents. On that note I wish to conclude by quoting Canon Scott's verse, which is as follows:
To labour not for place or power,
Nor wealth which lasts a paltry hour,
But only that when peace is won,
A kindly God may say "Well done."
The Address-Mr. Poulin (Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make my humble contribution to the debate on the address in reply. I should indeed be remiss in my duty if I failed to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address for their excellent speeches, as did others who spoke before me. I am sure their constituents will be proud of their new representatives.
The top question in the speech from the throne is, of course, that of international relations and the position of the various delegates at the United Nations.
The American representatives at the UNO, amongst others, have shown a feverish eagerness. One would think that they have hastened to create conditions which are apt to bring about a general war.
What is their purpose? Did they ever state it clearly? Obviously, like everybody else, they are anxious to fight communism. Why then did they ostracize General Franco for so long?
Why did we not help nationalist China to the end? Why did we, only recently, side with Tito of Yugoslavia, a communist as dangerous as Stalin, to whom we shall have, sooner or later, to make compromising concessions, similar to those from which Stalin benefited at the end of the last war?
The American government undoubtedly wishes to maintain peace and order in the world under the aegis of the United Nations. At the time of the Korean incident, on June 27, 1950, why did the leaders of that country adopt a definite policy, even before the security council had taken a decision, and why did the latter, faced with a fait accompli, simply give its approval and blessing?
Yet in the case of Formosa, for example, the American government does not seem to mind risking widespread warfare, through its uncompromising attitude. In fact, we all know that Washington's assistant delegate to Lake Success asserted, on January 20 last, that the attitude of the United States would be dictated by the needs of their national security.
What explains the stubborn hurry with which American diplomats replied to China's counter-proposals during the past few weeks when the special committee of three, of which our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was a member, very

The Address-Mr. Poulin commendably tried to temporize and to continue discussions in an attempt to find grounds for agreement.
I also believe it my duty to congratulate Canada's representative to the United Nations on the most acceptable and commendable stand he took on that occasion. It would be unfair not to offer the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the tribute of my personal approval of his attitude in inviting India's president to intervene and ask China to clarify her reply.
I have no illusions, knowing full well that by praising or censuring these hon. gentlemen I neither add to nor take away from their personal merit nor from the prestige they enjoy in the world. As an independent member of the house, I am duty-bound to adopt such an attitude.
For the moment, it would seem that the intervention of our representatives was not effective, but no one is willing to believe that their devotion and their efforts, especially those of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will remain fruitless. Even if the effect of his plans is not yet generally felt, sooner or later we will realize that our Secretary of State for External Affairs meant well when, particularly the last few months, he sought peaceful settlement of this burning question. However, I am sorry that, by his vote on the American proposal to brand China an aggressor, our representative went back on the splendid work he had done for some months past. I also express the hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree to be a member of the new committee now being planned to discuss the situation with the Peking government.
Why then should the United States representatives be so anxious to have China called an aggressor, knowing that this will, in effect, make further negotiation impossible, whatever may be said and whatever the house may think to the contrary, as has been proven in the past few days?
And now, to be logical, our behaviour towards China, an aggressive power, should be the same as our behaviour towards North Korea, also an aggressive power. Otherwise it will be thought that the United Nations' attitude towards smaller countries is not the same as towards great powers. It is easy to see the impossible situation

into which we have been thrust by the warlike ardour of our neighbours. Their intentions may be pure, but they want to drag us along with them, in good fortune or ill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, while she plays an important part in world affairs England is not prepared to rush matters. She evidently wants to protect her interests, her assets and her crown colonies in Asia.
Indeed her history shows that England has no friends; she has only interests. She knows, however, that she must look after them herself and trust to no one to do it for her. Be that as it may, what has been the result of this policy? England continues to avoid war and, to that end, strives to prevent interventions in Asia.
Besides, except for the great influence exerted by Washington on the decisions taken at the United Nations, it must necessarily be admitted that the large majority of countries want no part in an adventure that may lead to a general war.
Forces were sent to save Korea, and now we know how many unforgiveable blunders were made in this adventure on behalf of free nations. Shall we conitnue risking a war with China, a country that the United States will never be able to conquer or subdue? What Japan could not do within range of its cannons, western nations cannot do from thousands of miles away.
Moreover it must not be forgotten that under the present circumstances communism in China is perhaps but the manifestation of her nationalism, and that in order to get that country out of Moscow's orbit, shelling with butter would be much more effective than with guns.
China is now a communist country, not on principle or from conviction, but rather on grounds of expediency, out of necessity, because she cannot live otherwise. Let us give her a chance to recover, to rehabilitate herself, to find her lost freedom. Let us grant her a seat at the United Nations and we may have the great satisfaction of witnessing a change of attitude on her part. She will not become an ally of the western nations. On the contrary, she will no longer be the unwilling ally of Russian imperialism. She will be once again a nationalist and

traditionalist country. What could be better for peace in Asia and in the world than the materializing of such a possibility?
The policy followed by the United Nations, and especially Washington, is leading to a world war by the reaction it draws from the Russians who, obviously, in their own interest, help communist China. One would even think that war is being prepared.
The monstrous war budget of $87 billion introduced by the American government and Canada's defence plan calling for an expenditure of $5 billion lead us strongly to believe that a general war is in the offing. These fabulous expenditures, I will be told, are designed to prevent war. As was done last September, the old saying si vis Tpacem, para helium, if you want peace, prepare for war, will be invoked. But history proves this saying to be false; conquerors have always used it as a sham to hide their infamous designs for conquest. History is repeating itself once more. Besides, we all know that this saying was coined by these same people, these same imperialists who preached a preventive war of conquest with these words: delenda est Carthago, Carthage must be destroyed.
The Roman empire then wanted, in the name of peace, to cross the Mediterranean and destroy the very foundations of the African empire. Today the American empire is picking up the torch from the failing hands of the British empire and wants to cross not only the Mediterranean but the seven seas and use guns, tanks and flame throwers to make the Asiatic people benefit from the blessings of peace. And they want to drag Canada into the venture: we are already taking part in the undertaking as members of the Atlantic pact organization that has been set up.
We are asked to defend Europe or to defend ourselves in Europe. The speech from the throne suggests-and this was confirmed Monday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax.ton)-that the house will be called upon to vote billions of dollars for war or defence preparations.
In addition, Canada is being asked to send troops to the eventual battlefield of Europe. What shall we do in Canada? How shall we defend ourselves? Who will defend us and with what weapons?
We are told that the European continent is, at present, hard to defend against a mass Russian attack. In the event of such an
The Address-Mr. Poulin attack and of the possible fall of Europe, the American continent would become vulnerable. That, in my humble opinion, means that we should get ready to defend our own country. We should keep in Canada all the men available.	We should also use
the millions and the billions of dollars that will be voted by this house to organize our own protection.
I am neither a military man nor a tactician; when the first world war was declared, I was too young to take part in it and when the last one ended, I was no longer young enough to serve. I shall however be allowed to form a personal opinion, especially since I compel no one to concur in it. I do not share the view of those who claim we can defend Europe any more than I agree with those who would have us believe Canada can eventually be invaded, even if I admit that she can be attacked.
However, to save our country from such a disaster we must keep in this country the forces at our disposal and which we would need in case of attack, instead of sending them to Europe, where they probably would be destroyed without any tangible result. For, in the final analysis, results are what count.
In 1939, we fought a war to save Poland and thus keep a promise made to one of our allies. What were the results of our intervention? We have won the war, yet Poland is now subject to the worst kind of slavery she has ever known throughout the whole of her extremely tragic history.
We know now what our intervention in foreign wars can lead to. Already, from various districts across Canada come suggestions, urgent appeals for the conscription of our manpower for compulsory military service. This concerted pressure will go on increasing and well do we know what happened in the past under similar conditions: the government, whether Conservative or Liberal, finally yielded.
We will send to Europe or to Asia as many men as we will be able to recruit. When at last our country finds itself face to face with imminent danger-which heaven forbid-we will be told that conscription is necessary since we lack soldiers for our own defence.
Let us keep the soldiers at home that we can raise through voluntary enlistment. Let us not send them abroad to die probably in vain. And, after that, if the danger should grow greater and more pressing, so that we would need more men for our own defence,

The Address-Mr. Poulin there is not a single man worthy of the name-and that would include the humble representative from the constituency of Beauce-who would refuse to serve or to lay down his life in defence of his country!
The speech from the throne announces our continued participation in the Colombo plan for aid to underdeveloped countries. That is a very laudable plan which should not provoke too much discussion, as far as the principle is concerned, at any rate. For my part, I am entirely in favour of it.
If we are to fight communism, and I think we must fight it, I know of no better way of doing it successfully. Let us raise the standards of living in underdeveloped countries and their citizens will be much more inclined to shun communistic theories than if we resorted to bombing.
However, it should be borne in mind that, according to the gospel, "Man shall not live by bread alone." We should do our best to develop learning, education and religion among those peoples, all of them being free to improve their standards according to and along the lines of their national aspirations. Let us not try to change them into occidentals, because it would be useless; besides we would thus encourage their present tendency to turn towards Russia, which could be easily understood as a natural move of caution on their part. And above all, let us not make the colossal blunder of providing these populations with arms and munitions that they might very well turn against us.
Besides, those nations should be deeply impressed with the fact that western civilization is based more on fundamental principles and truths to liberate the mind than on weapons to enslave the body. Briefly, let us strive to make them love constructive peace rather than destructive war.
For some weeks past, I have endeavoured to poll the opinion of the constituents of Beauce with respect to the Canadian military budget.
I am convinced that the great majority of them have been startled by the announcement of a $5 billion budget.
I trust that in the future the supporters of an all-out effort will be satisfied and that a certain Montreal newspaper will stop showing the Minister of National Defence with a wooden sword and a straw cap.

On February 1, the leader of the official opposition moved an amendment to the speech from the throne. I cannot accept paragraphs 1 and 2 because, in my humble opinion, they are couched in terms too vague. Had it not been for the last paragraph, I would certainly have voted against the amendment. However, that last paragraph warrants my full and spontaneous support. It reads as follows:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the high cost of living, when one notices that the rise in the cost of living is proportionately much higher for the poor man than for the rich, because of the very fact that it affects consumer goods that the poor cannot do without, such as food and clothing, let us also stop and think that the government may be planning to bring in controls that would freeze prices at their present level while salaries, which have not increased at the same rate, will also be frozen at a relatively low level. In view of all these considerations, I cannot help supporting and voting for the amendment even though the first two paragraphs do not suit me.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) recognizes that the government has followed a constructive course in relation to the Korean dispute. I do not share this view and I said so emphatically in the house on September 2 last. With this qualification, however, I shall vote for this subamendment because it censures the government, and with good reason I believe, for having supported a course which is premature and unwise in relation to the resolution branding China as an aggressor.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to add a word about the national flag which Canada, like all self-respecting countries, should have.
On November 17 and 18 last I attended two beautiful ceremonies at St. George and St. Joseph de Beauce in commemoration of the Canadians who gave their lives in the two world wars, among whom were many men from the county of Beauce. At both places the ceremonies were moving and well carried out and I wish to congratulate the organizers.
At one of those places a scene was enacted in which some distinguished veterans of Beauce county mounted guard around the body of a Canadian soldier who had fallen on the field of honour. This Canadian soldier who had died for his country and who was

surrounded by some of his compatriots who had generously offered their lives was wrapped up in a shroud which seemed to me like a flag but on which I looked in vain for something recalling the country for which this Canadian had given up his life. For once in my life I admit I was ashamed of my country, for having failed so far to give those who die for their fatherland a shroud which would not be an insult to the greatness of their sacrifice. And all those who were there took advantage of that occasion to request the government of Canada to give its citizens at last a national flag.
(Text):


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover of the address to be presented to His Excellency for the speech with which this session was opened. May I thank the hon. member, first, for the reference he made to the Labrador iron ore mines. Like him, I hope that it may not be long before we shall see, as one speaker said last year, "the giant iron ore carriers moving up the St. Lawrence loaded with iron ore from the Labrador ore fields."
Tonight I do not think I should make any apology for drawing the discussion away from the subject that has been followed generally thus far by speakers in the debate. For a few minutes I shall deal with conditions in Newfoundland. So many people have asked me what things are like in Newfoundland that I think I should make some remarks in this connection.
A few days ago we had the pleasure of learning that the board of transport commissioners had given a decision in favour of Newfoundland's case, stating that the freight rates that had been charged since April 1, 1949, had been excessive, and that they had been contrary to the terms of union between the two countries. This decision however was not made retroactive. The effect of it was to make Newfoundlanders think that during almost two years excessive rates had been charged, and that moneys at the rate of $4 million a year had been collected by the Canadian National Railways in excess of what should have been collected. The excess amounted to almost $7 million.
I would suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that justice requires retribution in such a case. A good opportunity is now open to the minister to make such retribution. I believe he has been in receipt of correspondence from the board of trade
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne in St. John's, Newfoundland, requesting that, in the construction of the ferry now being planned to carry passengers, goods and motor vehicles across the Cabot strait from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, there should be provision for carrying goods by freight cars as was done in connection with the ferry from the mainland to Prince Edward Island.
At the present time I understand there is a wide-gauge track on Prince Edward Island. In Newfoundland we have a narrow-gauge track of three feet six inches, while the mainland gauge is over four feet six inches. In the early days of Prince Edward Island it was the custom to carry the freight cars across on the ferry, lay the freight car with the wide-gauge alongside the freight car with the narrow-gauge, and transfer the goods from one car to the other. Let us see what happens at the present time-and this is one place where the traffic is almost entirely in one direction, with Newfoundland purchasing $100 million worth of goods from the other nine provinces, and the other nine provinces purchasing not more than about $10 million worth from Newfoundland.
The freight goes down in the freight cars to North Sydney. It has to be taken ou of the freight cars and put into sheds. Then it has to be taken out of the sheds and put on steamers so that it can be brought to Port aux Basques. There it is taken out of steamers and put into sheds, following which it is taken out of sheds and put into the freight cars. Would it not be very much better, when the minister is arranging the design of the ferry boat, to have it so that freight cars can be placed on it, travelling across from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, so that when reaching Port aux Basques the goods could be placed directly from the freight cars with the wide gauge to the freight cars with the narrow gauge.
I understand from the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), who has a great deal of interest in matters of transport, as the minister knows, that this is a practical proposition. I trust the minister may see his way clear to kill two birds with one stone so as to do justice to Newfoundland, following the excessive rates which have been taken from that province in the last twenty months. I believe justice could be done by providing us with a service which will be satisfactory for many years to come. If trade with the other provinces of Canada is to flourish and grow, as I hope it will, he will have to make such provision, or he will be left with a boat he will not know what to do with-because I do not think the trade would grow so fast that

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne he could use two boats at the same time. He is going to invest a certain amount of money in this ferry boat. I believe there has been mention of the sum of $8 million. If that is so, then very careful consideration should be given to the question before a final decision is made.
What are the conditions in Newfoundland at the present time? Apart from our fishing industry we have a pulp and paper industry, with the largest pulp and paper mill in the world, located at Corner Brook. We have another large paper mill at Grand Falls. We have a composite ore mine at Buchan's owned, I believe, by the American Smelting and Mining Company. We have a great iron ore hematite mine at Bell island, in Conception bay. I am very glad to be able to say that, although unfortunately it is on account of war conditions, an extra order for a million tons of ore has been received by the Dominion Steel Company for the export of iron ore from Bell island, which will give much employment in the district represented by my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. Higgins). I am very glad that he has that prosperity in his district, and I am sure that my district, too, will benefit to some extent from it. The paper mills are working to capacity. In addition to that, orders have been received from the United Kingdom for the export of large quantities of pulpwood.
In addition to these industries we receive, due to confederation, the benefits of family allowances, old age pensions, and unemployment insurance, and we also have the benefits introduced by the provincial government in the form of mothers' allowances and dependents' allowances on a scale which we did not have before.
But, sir, making due allowance for all these sources of revenue, and for the prosperity that must ensue from the extension of the industries I have mentioned, there still remains the great fishing industry which, for centuries, has been the staple industry of my country. If the fisheries in Newfoundland prosper, then the whole of the country is prosperous. If the fisheries are not prosperous, then the province cannot be said to be prosperous, and people cannot be said to be happy. They become discontented, critical and discouraged.
What has been the experience in the last year? Perhaps hon. members would like tc know. Some may recall that it was necessary for the Canadian government to give a subsidy in respect of the fish left over and not sold from the 1949 catch. The industry started the year 1950 with that quantity of fish on hand, which the government bought. I do not think they bought much, because they did not take what was in the hands of


the merchants, and accepted only what was in the hands of the fishermen. I do not think the subsidy came to a great amount of money. But here is what the fisherman had to face after he had reluctantly decided to take part in the 1950 fishing season at the urging of the provincial premier.
In the first place the fisherman had to face a reduction of almost $3.50 per quintal of fish, or from $13.95 down to $10.50, with prices for the lower grades in proportion. That was a drop of over three cents per pound in the price of fish. These prices were paid in September in the early season, but as the season advanced the price began to drop lower, and dropped fast. Some of the merchants did not wish to buy Labrador fish. I do not know whether it was because of the representations made by the provincial government or because we have a Newfoundlander as a member of the government, but the federal government came forward and guaranteed a price of $7 per quintal for the Labrador catch. People were discouraged last year from going to Labrador. Others had sold their vessels, but the total catch was only about 150,000 quintals.
What about the shore fishery, which is the principal part of our fisheries? The catch there amounted to about 800,000 quintals. What was the attitude of the government in reference to that? The government did not give any guarantee but simply said they would keep the matter under review, would keep a close watch on it. But the government has done nothing about it. The fisherman of Newfoundland could not afford to wait for weeks or months until the government made up its mind and so perforce he had to sell his fish at depressed prices.
Not only was the normal price $3.50 a quintal lower, but the fish were culled in such a way by the merchants as to give much lower prices. If a merchant did not want to buy fish he would say it was poor quality and would put it in a lower grade. If a fisherman was sufficiently disgruntled or angry he might persuade the merchant to cull his fish a little higher. I was told by an outport planter that one fisherman had brought thirty quintals of fish to a merchant and these were first culled as being 25 quintals low-grade fish and five quintals of what we call madeira, for which the price was about $10.50 per quintal. He became angry and threatened to take the matter up with the inspectors in St. John's and the merchant changed his mind and made a second cull which turned out at 15 quintals of good quality fish and 15 quintals of lower quality. The fisherman still was not satisfied. He cursed and swore and said he was going to St. John's to get someone to come over

to see what was being done. His fish was culled the third time and this time the result was 25 quintals of good fish with only five quintals of lower quality.
This outport planter said to me that he had written to the fisheries board in St. John's, which is the representative of the Department of Fisheries, and asked what they were going to do. He wanted to know if there were three different ways of culling or grading fish. He has not yet received an answer. I fear there are more than three ways of culling fish. A lot depends upon the attitude taken by the merchant.
I have seen many receipts given by merchants for the 1949 and 1950 catches. I know that in 1949 almost all the fish was culled as being high grade and the top price paid was $13.95 per quintal. But in 1950 most of the fish was culled as being of an inferior grade. I have here copies of receipts that were passed over to me by fishermen. One fisherman said to me, "Why is the federal government guaranteeing the price of Labrador fish and not guaranteeing the price of shore fish? Don't you think that the people who fish from the shores of Newfoundland deserve as much consideration as those who fish in Labrador waters? What is the difference between the two?"
I have no complaint to make about the Labrador fishermen receiving a guaranteed price, but what about these shore fishermen? I do not suppose there are many hon. members outside of those who come from Newfoundland who understand the difference between the two types of fishing. Labrador fishing is normally carried on from a vessel and the fishermen are not able to dry the fish so well. It therefore contains more moisture. The shore fisherman is able to dry his fish more carefully and it has a higher value. Generally shore fish are worth from $3 to $5 more per quintal than the Labrador fish.
The guaranteed price for Labrador fish was $7 per quintal and you would therefore expect that the price received by the shore fisherman would be in the neighbourhood of $10 per quintal. What did he receive? As I said a moment ago the fishermen were asking why they did not have a guarantee for their fish. I sat down and wrote to the minister and the minister wrote back saying that he was informed that the price being received by the fishermen ranged between $9 and $10.50 per quintal. He was surprised to hear the figures \vhich I quoted. I have in my hand receipts of the same date that the minister wrote, November 21, and also some of the same date on which I received his letter, November 27. As I say, the minister 80709-10
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne was quite surprised at the figures I had quoted in my letter, namely, $5.30 and $4 per quintal.
As I said a moment ago, the price which the minister thought was being paid was between $9 and $10.50 per quintal. He had received that information from the St John's fisheries board. I called up the fisheries board and found that that was also their impression. As a result I do not think very much of the fisheries board. I do not think they talk to the fishermen at all; I think they talk only to the merchants. They take what the merchants have set as the price for fish, not what is actually paid. Anyway, that was the information given to the minister by the fisheries board.
I have one receipt here averaging $8.10 which is the highest price paid. That was on September 9, at the beginning of the season. Here is one for September 19 averaging $6.50. Here is one for October 17 for $3.75. Here is one November 27, the date I received the letter from the minister, for $5.90. The average for all this man's fish is $6.20, which is over $3 below the lowest price the minister thought was being paid, and 80 cents below the guaranteed price for Labrador fish.
I have another lot of receipts, one for November 13 and one for November 17, the date on which I wrote to the minister. The receipt for November 13 shows a price of $4.90, and the one for November 17, $5.42. This is an average of $5.16 a quintal or $4 below the price the minister thought the fishermen were receiving. Here is another lot of receipts showing an average price of $5.50 per quintal; here is another lot showing an average price of $5.50. The gentleman who gave me these told me that the same fish would have fetched $13 per quintal in 1949. He said that 448 quintals had been sold by him at an approximate average of $5.50 per quintal. I took this matter very seriously because I wanted to bring the matter up in the house when I came here for it is a matter of the greatest consequence to the fishermen of Newfoundland. I got in touch with some fishermen on whose judgment and opinion I thought I could rely. I talked to several and asked them to give me their candid opinions, and one man in particular wrote. Here are the prices that he gives: $7 for the large madeira, which is the best quality that is being sold this year; $6 50 for the small; $5 for the large West India and $4.50 for the small West India. He said the fish was sold at an average of approximately $6 per quintal, which is $1 per quintal less than the price paid by the government for

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne Labrador fish, and as much as $4.50 less than the price which the minister thought was being paid as the top price for shore fish.
The fishermen were very discouraged and disheartened this year, and they said to me that they were not going to fish next year. They were persuaded to do so this year against their better judgment because they felt if there was not a guarantee given them they would lose money on what they were doing. This one man said to me in his letter:
I might add this price is no good for fish and unless something is done for this year to guarantee at least $9 or $10 per quintal for dried shore fish X do not see that there will be many fishing. For my own part I operate cod traps and unless there is a price set X cannot see how I can go fishing, and this goes for a great many.
I do not want to read any more of the letter. That represents the general opinion. Several fishermen have told me that they have burned their flakes. We have heard the expression "burned their boats". These men have burned their flakes. It amounts to the same thing because it means they have no place where they can dry their fish. There is no industry in Newfoundland which is more important for the prosperity of the country than fishing. That is generally recognized because, while you may have one Bell island, one Buchan's, one Grand Falls and one Comer Brook, where thousands of men are employed, there are in Newfoundland another thousand settlements at least where men are fishing, and only a comparatively small proportion of them are engaged in fishing and selling their fish fresh. The majority of them are dependent on the sale of salt codfish.
You might be interested to know what happened to that fish; and every fisherman in my riding and in Newfoundland generally would like to know what happens to the fish after it has been sold to the merchant. One man came into my office and said he did not know what he was going to do with his fish. He had 80 quintals of fish. He sold it and it netted him $5.30. As we say, it was bought sight unseen. What was the average price of that fish when it was sent to the markets abroad? Our fish goes to Puerto Rico, Jamaica, the Barbados, Spain, Portugal and Italy. I was glad to see that the other day UNICEF, a United Nations organization, bought 500 tons of fish for Yugoslavia and Greece. I should like to know how much they paid for it.
Today I got in touch with the dominion bureau of statistics and found out the average price paid for all fish exported from Canada in October, November and December, and if the averages are fair and just in one particular, they ought to be fair and just in

the other. For October the average price was 14-6 cents per pound. For November the average price was 12-7 cents per pound, and for December 16 cents per pound. The best part of our fish goes to Puerto Rico, a larger proportion than to any other foreign market, and the average price in December for fish that went to that country was 15 cents per pound.
A great deal of that fish came from Newfoundland because Newfoundland is the greatest salt codfish exporting province in Canada. In contrast to the 14-6 cents received in October, 3J-7J cents was paid to the fishermen. In contrast with the 12-7 cents in November, less than 6 cents was paid to the fishermen, and in contrast to the 16 cents in December, on December 8 the average price paid to some fishermen was less than 5 cents a pound when the average export price going through customs, as recorded by the dominion bureau of statistics, was 16 cents a pound.
It needs no great imagination to see that between 5 or 6 or 7 cents a pound and 16 cents a pound there is a great gap. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is not present. I know he would like to hear what I am saying, and I hope he will find time to read it in Hansard tomorrow. I believe the fishermen have been cheated this year on a wholesale scale and some recompense or rebate ought to be given to the fishermen if the merchants have made the exorbitant profit which the fishermen think, and which I think, they have made on the sale of much of the fish. The fishermen had to sell their fish quickly and when they did so they did it at a great sacrifice. It is not right that the merchants should be able to profit by the great difference between the price which the fishermen received in many cases and which the bureau of statistics shows was received.
In 1929 the maritime provinces were in a great state of depression. The government appointed a commission under the late Judge MacLean, I believe, to go through the Gaspe peninsula and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to investigate the poverty and the generally bad conditions that prevailed amongst fishermen. As a result a report was brought in and one of the recommendations contained therein was that it was time for fishermen to be organized in co-operative societies. It was recommended that the federal government should appoint an organizer to go down there, carry on educational work and organize the fishermen into co-operative societies. I have a copy of that

report and I shall read a few sentences from it to show you what they recommended. They are:
We recommend, therefore, that the establishment of co-operative organizations of fishermen be assisted by the department as soon, as possible, and that an organizer, experienced in co-operative methods, be appointed and paid by the federal government for the required period to initiate and complete this work, A preliminary study and survey of the entire maritime provinces should be made to determine the localities where such organizations are possible or feasible. We do not conceive such an undertaking to be beyond the scope of departmental responsibility or government aid. The fisheries are a basic industry and are reasonably entitled to assistance and encouragement. A similar venture has already been aided for agriculture, in part at least. We are far from suggesting that the government should enter into the business of buying and selling fish products; we merely suggest, rather, that it should help fishermen through their organizations to buy and sell for themselves to better advantage.
Then they go on to say that if they may judge from the success of similar undertakings in Canada, they feel that in a very short time these suggested co-operative undertakings will give good results. That was done; that recommendation was implemented, and the greatest expert on co-operatives on this continent, Right Rev. Dr. Moses Coady of Antigonish, was sent around the maritime provinces to organize the fishermen. As a result of his work the united maritime fishermen's association was established, and is functioning today.
What is to prevent the government doing the same thing in 1951 for Newfoundland? All that is necessary is for the minister to appoint a man to go to Newfoundland and organize the fishermen; and it should be done quickly, before the 1951 season begins. I am sure all the members here from Newfoundland and the maritime provinces will realize that unless the fishermen are organized they are defenceless against the merchants, especially when they come to sell their catch. I trust, therefore, that the minister will give serious consideration to what I have suggested, remembering that, as I have said previously in this house, what counts in the fishing industry is the fisherman. He is the one who must be benefited. If he is not, the system is a failure. If the fisherman is going to be disgruntled and dissatisfied, as he is this year, selling off his equipment, selling his vessels, stuck on the rocks, as they say at home, for the fishing season, then we would have been better off under our own government, because we never would have allowed the fishermen to suffer as they have been suffering for the past year. I saw men with reputations as great fish killers at home on the rocks in Newfoundland, their beautiful vessels lying in the harbour, because they could not get supplies to go fishing. Even then they were not as badly off as those who 80709-to i
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne did go fishing. Many of those who brought in catches had to sell them at depressed prices, as I have attempted to show.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will consider what the fisherman has to say, and not listen only to the fisheries board, or the salt cod export board, or the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited. As I say, the first thing to do is send someone down there to organize them, and they could very easily be amalgamated with the fishermen of Nova Scotia. The advantages of co-operation are well known in Newfoundland today, because many of the bankers from the maritime provinces come into the harbour of St. John's and other harbours along the coast and tell the fishermen in Newfoundland what they are being paid for fish in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In almost every case we have found that the price being paid in Nova Scotia is better than the price the Newfoundland fisherman is receiving, and I say that is largely the result of the organization of the fishermen.
Now, sir, for the remainder of my time I propose to deal with the international situation. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) on his excellent speech in seconding the motion for an address in reply. I am sorry that I do not know French well enough to have the courage to address these remarks to him in his own language, but I may tell him I have read his speech with interest and noted his emphasis on the provincial and federal arrangements mentioned in the speech from the throne. I also noted with interest his historical reference to the fact that this year represents the fifteenth centenary of the invasion of the civilized world by the unholy alliance of the Slavs and Mongols. Everyone here acquainted with ancient history knows what destruction the ancient Roman empire suffered when those terrible races overran Italy and Gaul, as the hon. member said; and he pointed out that today the danger is much greater.
Then I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on his very interesting speech. Whatever we may think of his decisions I believe we agree that the hon. gentleman makes a very interesting speech, not merely one that you delight to listen to at the time it is given but one you can pick up later and enjoy not only the phraseology but the fine distinctions he draws. I was particularly struck with the fine distinctions he made in his speech the other day. I do not believe the ordinary citizen of this country is able to follow those fine distinctions, however; nor do I believe the ordinary citizen of this

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne country is able to follow the complicated debates that have been taking place in the United Nations assembly for the past few months. The ordinary citizen is not able to appreciate the niceties of the thing at all. Therefore he becomes disinterested and a little impatient with what is going on. He can see the broad issues, but I suppose the finer ones must be left to the experts. The ordinary citizen therefore is dependent to a large extent upon those propounders of public opinion, the ministers of the government and the editors of the newspapers.
In listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs it seemed to me there was a lack of realism about his speech. He said, as is true, that the free world is in the greatest possible danger; and I commend this to my hon. friend who preceded me. If words mean anything, that meant we ought to be almost frightened to death. The free world is in the greatest possible danger; nothing could be greater than the greatest possible danger. How long has that situation existed? How long did it take the members of the United Nations to determine how the conduct of the Chinese should be designated? Let us compare the time it took to determine what name should be applied to the conduct of North Korea. We remember the special session, at which we were presented with a white paper entitled "Canada and the Korean Crisis". Let me direct the attention of the house to page 7 of that publication:
. . . the United States government informed the secretary general of the United Nations on June 25 that it considered the attack of the North Korean forces on the republic of Korea constituted "a breach of the peace and an act of aggression" and urgently requested the calling of an immediate meeting of the security council, the whole machinery and the first purpose of the United Nations was put to the test.
A meeting was called for that very day; before the day was over North Korea was declared to be an aggressor, and an immediate request went out to the member governments of the United Nations for assistance. Because the United States was the only country on hand with forces to repel this North Korean attack, the government of the United States sent those forces immediately.
On the other hand, how long did it take to decide that China was an aggressor? We were told that this action by the United Nations was something new, something historic, something we should all remember; that a new era was dawning for the world. More than once we were told, by ministers in this house and by people in other countries, that this was police action. Well, having been a magistrate for a number of years I am familiar with what is meant by police action. Let me contrast the ordinary procedure in a

police action with what has taken place in regard to Korea and China. If a citizen is assaulted on the street, what does he do? He cries for help; if there is a policeman within' a block or two someone will say, "You had better get down there; a man is being attacked," and the policeman gets there as quickly as he can. Or someone telephones the police station and the black maria, as we call it at home, or the police wagon is sent out and if possible the attacker is arrested. In other words the police go into action as quickly as possible. What happened in Korea? The call went out that the South Korean territory was invaded and that the North Koreans had attacked an unprepared and unsuspecting country. The United Nations was the magistrate that was appealed to and that asked for the police to come. The first police to arrive on the scene were the United States forces. Other policemen came up after a while. Through the skilful manoeuvres of the chief of that police force, General MacArthur, the assault was quelled and it looked as if the whole thing was over. However, it was not over. We were wrong.
Suppose that, when the police went to assist an ordinary citizen', the bystanders took a part in the affair; what would happen then? They would be arrested also, and the bystanders who assaulted the police would be liable to a second charge, they would be liable not merely to one charge but to two charges. Whereas the original aggressors or assailants would be charged with assault and battery, the second assailants would be charged with interfering with the police in the performance of their duty and would be liable to another two years' imprisonment in addition to the three years for which they would be liable for assault.
What happened as to the police action in Korea when the bystanders, who were well prepared to attack, came in? With the intervention of the Chinese communist army, did the United Nations immediately take action against them and lay a further charge? No, they did not. But in my humble opinion, and I believe in the opinion of a great many people, there was a great deal of shillyshallying and beating about the bush; it was said that we did not know this and that we did not know that. In my opinion the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has added a new conundrum to the puzzle book. What he has done is this. He has found an answer to the question: When is an aggressor not an aggressor? The answer, as I conceive it to be from his remarks, is: When the aggression is an old one. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the old aggression was finished and done with and that there was a new aggression. I will admit that the

Secretary of State for External Affairs was perhaps placed in a difficult position; but for the life of me I do not see how he can call it an old aggression when an army that has been poised on the Manchurian border attacked the police force of the United Nations, the hope of the civilized world, and caused them so many hundreds and even thousands of casualties.
In this subamendment we are asked to condemn the action of the United Nations in declaring that communist China was an aggressor. It seems to me that if we accept that subamendment, what it amounts to is that the members of this house are declaring that the United Nations are aggressors, because where two people are into a fight, one of them must be an aggressor. I repeat that statement: If we accept that subamendment of the C.C.F. party, it amounts to an acknowledgment that the United Nations themselves were the aggressors in this matter.
I have here another document, a white paper distributed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On pages 9 and 10 of it are listed the different dates and the events that took place on those dates which justified the United Nations in deciding that communist China was an aggressor. I notice here an extraordinary thing-I do not know whether other hon. members have noticed it -and I do not know what significance it has. I notice on October 30:
Interrogation of 19 Chinese prisoners of war identified two additional regiments of 124 CCF division . . .


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What a fighting unit!


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know whether my hon. friends to my left formed part of that force. I notice that on November 2 mention is made of the 112, 113 and 114 divisions of the 38 CCF army; and so on for the other dates. I am not making any suggestions at all. There are the facts and there is the document presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At page 55 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs is reported to have said:
I feel, however, that the Far Eastern problems could be more readily solved if diplomatic relations existed with the government of China, which has the whole of the mainland of China under its control.
He made that statement of his feelings, but he did not back it up with any facts. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give us any illustration in history which
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne justifies him in saying that diplomatic relations with Russia or with any of the satellite countries have solved any problems whatsoever. Let me mention a few. Has the existence of diplomatic relations with Russia solved the question of Russia's foreign debt? Has it been able to give Christians living in Russia due respect for their religious beliefs and protection of their religion? Has it facilitated investigation of complaints against the Russian government or the question of the marriage of Russians with non-Russians? Has it solved the question of the disappearance of the 10,000 Polish officers who disappeared after they had been taken prisoners by Russia in 1939? Has it solved the question of the repatriation of the hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese prisoners of war, of whom no trace has been found since they were taken prisoners in the second world war? Has the existence of diplomatic relations with the friendly communist Yugoslavs enabled justice to be done as we should like to see it done, in accordance with the fundamental freedoms that we hear so much about, in the case of the arrest, the persecution, the trial and the imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac? Has the existence of diplomatic relations with these communist dictatorships and totalitarian regimes helped in any way to prevent espionage, sabotage and underground revolutionary activities in all the other countries?
We all recognize that there are fundamental differences of outlook and differences in belief between the governments of communist countries and our own. The chief difference is that communism is materialistic and atheistic. It recognizes neither the divine origin of the universe nor the divine destiny of man. It is built on hate rather than on love. We were told many years ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: I just have a couple of minutes to go.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Pouliot:: Make it snappy.


William Joseph Browne: Thank you very much.
In 1920 the Independent Labour party of Great Britain sent a questionnaire to the Soviet government in Moscow containing twelve questions. The eighth question in that list was as follows:
In what respect does the third international consider that communism differs from other forms of socialism?
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Power
That is a very important question and was recognized as the principal question in the list submitted by the Labour party. The answer came back:
There are no other forms, there is only communism. Whatever else goes under the name of socialism is either wilful deception by the lackeys of the bourgeoisie-
And they were referring to the socialist
members in Great Britain. I continue:
-or self-delusion of persons or groups who hesitate to choose between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; who hesitate between a life-and-death struggle and the role of assistants to the expiring bourgeoisie.
Now, sir, the effect of voting for this subamendment would be, as I have said, to brand the United Nations organization as aggressors.
The aim of communism is world domination. That has been so often stated by the Russians themselves that we are fools to think otherwise. The general opinion that prevails today is that the greatest danger lies in the west, and I believe that opinion to be sound. Because of long civil wars in China and the war of attrition with Japan, China cannot be in a position to make war on any great scale.
If there is a surrender to aggression and the use of force, it will be not only a military defeat but a moral defeat, the results of which may be catastrophic.
Today in Japan there are 84 million people watching anxiously what is taking place. It seems to me, unless Korea is re-established at least in the position it was before June 25, with compensation, if possible, from the North Koreans, the United Nations is not able to fulfil its task.
In conclusion, sir, I should like to draw your attention to a press dispatch that appeared in a St. John's, Newfoundland, paper on January 21. I am not sure that it appeared in other papers. It came from Berlin and it said:
An 18-year-old German's defiant cry that he would rather die than bow to communist rule stirred his countrymen today on both sides of the iron curtain.
"I love my freedom more than my life," Herman Joseph Flade shouted to a communist court in Russian-controlled Dresden.
That was courage, Mr. Speaker. Does not that outburst of that condemned but courageous German represent the feelings of us all?


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Some hon. gentleman earlier in this debate made the statement that in his opinion this session of the House of Commons would be devoted largely to the discussion of international affairs. To some extent I agree with him; but I think his attention should be called to the fact that there are many weighty


matters of domestic concern which will have to be debated and discussed during the present session.
To some extent I am inclined to agree with him because it is impossible to get a true picture of the over-all situation of Canada at the present time unless one gives at least some consideration to the relationship of Canada to the United Nations organization and to world affairs.
Just over 30 years ago in this house I opposed the subscription of Canada to the covenant of the league of nations; and some years later, in 1923, I introduced a resolution calling upon Canada to withdraw from the league of nations. Nevertheless I cannot claim the prescience of having opposed the entry of Canada into the United Nations organization because at that time the wave of idealism for the brotherhood of man and of enthusiasm swept the world and encompassed Canada itself. But permit me to say, sir, as one who has never made any claim to an extensive or intensive study of external affairs, and who knows no more of the proceedings of the United Nations than that which he gleaned from the headlines in newspapers or from the radio commentators, that in my humble opinion, whatever may be said in favour of the United Nations organization -and much can be said and has been said by its supporters and apologists-certainly we can no longer say that it will bring about peace in this world. Nor can it be said that the United Nations of itself can prevent aggression by a major power or its satellites.
In order to endeavour to assure ourselves of a somewhat uneasy peace we are obliged perhaps not to disregard the United Nations organization but at least to set it aside in favour of the Atlantic treaty. Let me say at the outset of my remarks on this subject that I favour the Atlantic treaty; but let me also say that in placing most of our faith and confidence on what can be accomplished out of that pact and that treaty we are returning to that which we have condemned and reviled in the past, namely, power politics.
I can see little or no difference between the state of the world as it exists at the present time and the state of the world as it was immediately prior to and during the seven years war, the Napoleonic wars and the first world war. Now as then, nations, desiring to preserve their autonomy and their liberty against the encroachment of mon-archial or dictatorial tyrants, had been obliged to band themselves together in combinations or coalitions; now, as in that time, the weaker nations are obliged to call on the

stronger ones for subsidies for arms, and for the furnishing of armed forces.
Now, as in former times, there are satellite wars and undeclared wars. Prior to the seven years war the English were fighting the French in America, and the French were fighting the English in India for months and perhaps years, long before their governments and courts declared that a state of war existed. So that if my conjecture is the right one, and we are dependent almost entirely, for the preservation of peace in the world and for the prevention of aggression, upon the construction of a wall of peace against Russian aggression in Europe, then we have returned to the realm of world politics and of power politics.
As I said before, I am not opposing the Atlantic pact; but I would like it to be placed in its true light before the people of this country, and before the members of the house. I believe that at the present time the combination of the Atlantic nations is probably the only thing which will save the liberties of the European nations, at any rate, and probably save their hides.
I realize, as every member realizes, that the Atlantic nations, particularly those in Europe, in banding themselves together to resist aggression are taking upon themselves a very grave risk. But it is what Mr. Churchill called in the last war a calculated risk. It is a calculation that fear of the atomic bomb may deter Russia for a sufficient length of time to enable the Atlantic nations to rearm. And, less probably, it is a risk calculated on the fact that perhaps Russia, with the diverse elements of nations and races which compose it, has not as yet formed herself into a nation so well integrated as to permit of undertaking a global war. The Atlantic nations, those who subscribe to the pact, and who live on this side of the Atlantic, have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot afford to allow Russia to sweep over Europe, and to become possessed of the manpower and industrial potential which is on that continent. As a result of that, these nations have decided to extend their frontiers to the other side of the Atlantic, by extending assistance in the way of armament and equipment, and by rearming the peoples of Europe.
The policy and program laid down last evening by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is that, as a nation, we shall give our utmost support to the Atlantic pact nations, that we shall do so by supplying arms and equipment, by placing our industrial potential at their disposal, and by sending armed forces to Europe.
With respect to the program which was so well explained by the minister himself last
The Address-Mr. Power night, it seems to me that the first reaction of the house and of the Canadian people must have been one of astonishment at the magnitude and cost of the program he unfolded. It drove home to us, and I think to the people of Canada, that in order even to prepare for war we must spend almost astronomical sums. If that be the case, if the preparation in order to deter the enemy from attacking us runs us into five billions of dollars, then it is difficult to imagine what a real war would cost.
The next reaction-and this is the one which struck me-is that it behooves us to have a certain note of caution. We should- and I gather the government has given consideration to these things-endeavour to ascertain for ourselves, as Canadians, how we may be of the most assistance to our partners in the Atlantic pact, if we are to play fully the role we propose to play. And the note of caution I would wish to sound would be this: Having decided on the course of action and on the program which we should follow in order best to render assistance, let us be careful not to waste our energies and our resources by an overdiversification of those energies and resources.
I take it for granted, indeed I think the minister so stated, that the decisions arrived at as to the kind of assistance we propose to render to our partners were decisions which had been approved of and agreed upon-subject of course to confirmation by parliament-by our partners in the Atlantic pact. Canada, by agreement with the Atlantic pact nations, apparently has decided to give preponderance in its assistance to air power. It will do this, firstly, by training the air crews of its associates, and secondly by furnishing squadrons to Europe. Apparently our allies are satisfied with this proposed contribution. The question I ask myself is whether the people of Canada will be satisfied with this contribution of a preponderance in air forces. I say that because, during world war II, there were persons in the country and even in the House of Commons who, notwithstanding the glamour and the glory of the achievements of the air force, and notwithstanding that, in proportion to the number of their men actively engaged, they suffered greater casualties than any other arm of the service, were not convinced that Canada was doing its part in that war, until such time as casualty reports came rolling in from Italy.
I am not saying I blame those people. There are in Canada a number of men who are battery-minded, battalion-minded, division-minded; and they have as much right to their opinions as anyone else. Then there

The Address-Mr. Power are other hon. members of the house and other men in this country who believe in a big navy.
I expect to be accused of being prejudiced, but I put myself on the side of the angels, geographically speaking-I favour the Royal Canadian Air Force. Since we are now laying down government policy for the next three years, a policy which presumably will be followed should we be so unfortunate as to be drawn into a shooting war, it should be part of the duty of every hon. member of this parliament, before allowing this program to pass unchallenged, to explain his views and state whether he considers it to be in the interests of Canada to have a greater proportion of the strength of Canada devoted to an air force than to any other force.
I say that advisedly because I well remember at the beginning of world war II when the delegates from Great Britain came here to propose that we embark upon a great air training scheme. The then minister of finance, my late chief, a leader and patriot whose like has rarely been seen in this house, Layton Ralston, said to the delegates that we should be careful to be sure that Canada could afford this large amount of money and, secondly, that Canada should not be bled white right at the start of the war. He pointed out further to the delegates that we were likely to have other commitments, that we were likely to have to furnish ground forces. The reply was made that the primary duty of Canada was to undertake this great air training scheme.
As time went on we all know how that air training scheme was developed, but other efforts were put forth paralleling that scheme. Not only did they cost enormous sums of money, but in the long run it led to serious difficulties.
I mention these things in order that we in this house, as well as the people in the country, may thoroughly understand this program. As I said before, I strongly favour a preponderance of assistance by way of an air force. Since I am asking other hon. members to give their reasons why they would favour a big navy, a big army, a big tank brigade or preference for other components of an army, perhaps I should give some of the reasons I have for suggesting that an air program should be adopted. I say this notwithstanding what may appear to have been a setback at the beginning of the Korean war. Perhaps the supporters of a great air force held exaggerated views and possibly the effectiveness of air strength did not come up to their expectations, but I do believe,


and I think this is admitted, that supremacy in the air will go a long way toward settling any future war.
The reasons I have for supporting an air program are that Canadians for some reason or other have a great reputation as air warriors; that Canada has earned a reputation for its capacity to train air crew; that the program calls for Canadian squadrons, manned by Canadians and supplied with Canadian equipment from Canadian factories.
Perhaps I am treading on dangerous ground when I contend that there is less danger of deterioration of morale among air force personnel stationed in a foreign country than there is on the part of, let us say, army personnel. I think it will be confirmed by those who were fortunate to be in England during the first two and a half or three years of the war that it was extremely difficult to keep up the morale of the ground troops no matter how well the manoeuvres simulated actual conditions of warfare. There is always the danger of boredom with a consequent loss of morale.
But as far as the air force are concerned, the ground crew will be doing exactly the same work they would be doing in wartime. They will be preparing aircraft for troops. Perhaps the danger will not be so great as if an enemy were shooting at them, but they must be ever alert to any deficiency in the machinery or equipment. The air crew are engaged in a hazardous occupation. Every young man who makes up part of an air crew has the pleasure of having under his hand a fast, swiftly moving machine. For these reasons I believe there is less danger of deterioration in their morale.
Undoubtedly there would be an easier interchange of squadrons. Those which are trained here in Canada could more readily, more efficiently and more expeditiously be exchanged with squadrons being trained on the other side. With respect to the psychological effect on our allies and1 on our enemies, which is given as one of the great reasons why we should send forces to Europe, the greater mobility of the air arm and the fact that there will be a large number of men engaged in servicing and in flying eleven squadrons would result in their making their presence felt equally with and perhaps more than an equivalent or similar number of the other arms of the services. Perhaps I should not say this as a last reason, but if the worst comes to the worst the air force has half a chance of getting out and coming back again.
I assume that the division-which is a new term to me in air force jargon-mentioned by the minister will be composed of fighters, interceptors, reconnaissance and transport. It

is a matter of regret to me that it will be almost impossible to add squadrons or wings or groups of bombers. Although I have not gone to any authoritative source, I am informed that to have in Great Britain or on the continent of Europe a group similar in size and equipment to No. 6 Canadian bomber group in the last war would cost in initial equipment alone anything from $1,500 million to $2 billion. Therefore we are precluded by the very thought and consideration of the cost of any such contribution of heavy bombers.
I am told that an individual heavy bomber costs anywhere from $5 million to $6 million. Therefore a squadron composed of twenty bombers would cost in equipment alone $100 million. Therefore the task of strategic bombing of the enemy will, as I understand it, be left largely to the air force of the United States of America just as the task of supplying ground forces will apparently be placed to a considerable extent on the shoulders of the republic of France.
There is one other matter that I should like to mention, and since it is one that has aroused some controversy in this house and outside I approach it with considerable diffidence. It is the question of whether or not a committee of this house should be set up to discuss the expenditure on national defence. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has set forth his views on the matter eloquently and cogently. Members of the government have replied equally eloquently and in terms which merit consideration. I am inclined to think that there is a middle course between the views of the government and those of some of the members of the opposition.
With respect to the constitutional aspect, I believe that matters relating to policies and strategy are the responsibility of the government and the government alone. Recently I was reading the life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, by Brian Tunstall, and I found this passage in reference to the government of William Pitt:
In a country such as England, governed by a constitutional monarchy, it is neither desirable nor practical for war to be conducted either jointly or independently by the heads of the fighting services. On all major issues they must receive express direction from the crown constitutional advisers, responsible to parliament. Admirals and generals are the commanders-in-chief of the sea and land forces, but the crown and ministerial advisers are the commanders-in-chief of the whole nation.
I believe it will be found that Lloyd George in world war I and Winston Churchill in world war II kept within their own hands all decisions with respect to policy and strategy, and I can conceive of nothing worse for the morale and discipline of the various armed
The Address-Mr. Power forces than for their chiefs of staffs to be called before a parliamentary committee to give evidence either for or against the policies laid down by the government. I will give one instance. I myself, although I was a member of the government when the project was initiated, have always had serious doubts as to the value to this country of the creation of a fleet air arm and of the acquisition of the Magnificent.
I hold those views and I believe that in all probability a great many of the superior officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force hold similar views, although I have not communicated with them for over five years, but I would not think it either fair to the forces or fair to the minister to call the chiefs of staff of the Royal Canadian Air Force before a parliamentary committee and to place them in contradiction with the policy of the government. I would go one step further. In my time there were in the Royal Canadian Air Force earnest, conscientious and devoted men who had strong views as to certain types of equipment. Those views were fought over and discussed in air council and sometimes went as far as defence council, but once the policy was settled, once the chiefs of staff and the officers concerned had decided that such a type of equipment should be that which would be acquired and no other kind, then the matter rested there.
I think it would be unfair to place officers of different arms of the services in contradiction with each other with respect to such matters. That is only a personal view acquired from some little experience in dealing with this department.
On the other hand it seems to me that since we are embarking upon a program calling for the expenditure of $5 billion, this House of Commons of Canada has a duty to scrutinize and supervise that expenditure. It is extremely difficult for that scrutiny and supervision to be carried out in a house composed of as many members as we have here; and I believe that if a committee on expenditure were set up, with an appropriate reference which could be agreed upon by the leaders of the government and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), much good would result. Members of parliament would be in a better position to analyse and understand why certain moneys were being expended.
I would not propose to curtail in any way the right of every member of parliament to talk on any subject arising out of this expenditure; nor would I implement the rule, if it ever was a rule, that was brought into effect some years ago to prevent questions being placed on the order paper with respect to a department whose affairs were under the

The Address-Mr. Gosselin scrutiny of a committee of this house. Either by arrangement among the members of this house or by the order of reference I would safeguard in every possible way the rights of members of parliament to discuss anything arising out of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. At the same time I believe that a more careful scrutiny of these expenditures, having in mind the complexities which are bound to arise in connection with an expenditure of this size, could be made by setting up such a committee. This I believe would maintain the traditions of parliament and at the same time would be a benefit to the members and to the people of this country.


Mr. Henri A. Gosselin (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join other hon. members of the house in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who performed their duties so well. I am sure the counties they represent will be highly pleased by the way they carried out their task.
In my first remarks I do not intend to deal at length with the matter of national defence, but I believe it is my duty to express my views with respect to the most important matters with which this government will be called upon to deal during the present session. I have listened carefully to the various speeches that have been made since the opening of the session and the statements by the different ministers, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and others. From the very first Canada has been developed on certain principles and traditions, and we wish to continue under those principles. Canada has a small population, but we have always known freedom and good understanding, and we intend to maintain our freedom against any aggressors who would destroy it.
I believe it is our duty to treat this matter in a non-political way. I believe it is the responsibility of every member of this house to deal with these matters sincerely and honestly. On various occasions our representatives at the United Nations have stated that these principles should be advanced throughout the world, and we have felt it our duty to join with other countries to find ways and means of making sure that communist principles shall not be introduced here. From what I have read in the newspapers and learned in other ways I want to congratulate those members of the government who have had the responsibility of expressing the principles in which our country believes. It is our duty to give them our entire support day 

by day, so they may be in a position to act immediately if at any time they feel the welfare of the country is threatened.
As I say, we have only a small population compared with other members of the United Nations, but in the last two wars we have shown the world that when the Canadian people undertake a task they fulfil it one hundred per cent. We intend to carry on in the same tradition if there should be a third world war, but I believe we should be prepared to assist the United Nations in every possible way so that the danger of a third world war may be averted.
It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, as these matters are presented to the house to scrutinize and examine them, but in the most sincere way, so that no errors may be committed; and with our experience in the last war I believe we should strike an average of almost one hundred per cent in our endeavours with the United Nations. We have an energetic population which is ready to make all possible sacrifices in order that our liberties and our way of life may be preserved. The efforts of our people, with all our natural resources, will be offered to the United Nations, if necessary, so that success may be achieved. We must endeavour to make every possible sacrifice in our way of living so that we shall be able to meet the expenditures necessary to carry on the fight to preserve our principles. I shall not endeavour to go into the ways and means of administering the various departments, for I have not the necessary knowledge or experience. Nevertheless, I feel that those who have the knowledge of these matters should be supported one hundred per cent, in order that success may be achieved.
Our sister country on this side of the ocean, with a large population, has up to the present time taken measures to protect freedom and liberty, so that the principles of the communists who desire to rule the world will not be accepted amongst the free nations. Knowing our obligations, we in Canada for several months past have followed the contribution which Canada has proposed to make to ensure the success of the United Nations. In this I believe we have the support of the entire population of Canada. They feel that it is the duty of the government, through their representatives, to follow every move which is necessary and to give the necessary financial support regardless of politics; because liberty cannot be bought with dollars but can be obtained only by defending the principles which we are endeavouring to preserve.

Along with the measures we take for our defence, it is our duty to carry on under our social laws which have been on the statute books for several years past, so our people will be assured that, during their lives, they will be protected by social laws designed to help those who have not been so fortunate as to accumulate wealth and who are most in need. By so doing we shall establish in this country of ours the basis of the principles which we have for many years been supporting.
It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, to base our policies on the development of our natural resources. This development will be necessary in our efforts in connection with national defence. It is necessary for us to create in the minds of our younger generation the feeling that the policy which this government is bound to follow is one looking to their protection in the future. It is our duty to see that our natural resources are developed as fast as possible so that our growing population will feel convinced that there is for them a living in this country.
It is also our duty to encourage in every way possible the principles of labour. With regard to those principles of labour, may I say a few words of thanks to this government for the action taken by them with regard to the railroad strike. I am a railway employee and I confess that I was a striker. We have obtained entire satisfaction, and I am speaking in the name of a large number of railroad employees who have said that they were entirely satisfied with the way in which this government acted. The railroad men had the right, and they exercised it, to tie up the transportation system of Canada; and I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for ordering the railroad men to go back to work. We had the right to tie up the transportation of the Canadian people, and the government has given us the right to negotiate further, and we have obtained satisfactory results. I wish to thank the entire membership of this house for granting us the privilege of continuing those negotiations.
Furthermore, I think it is my duty as a farmer to offer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) my congratulations on the way he is carrying on in the interests of the Canadian people. Whether you are from the east or from the west, the interests of agriculture are intimately connected. We are working for the interests of the Canadian people. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture and of this government to establish markets so that our products can be
The Address-Mr. Gosselin sold as they are grown. Agricultural products cannot be preserved from year to year. They must be sold after the crop has been harvested. It is necessary for the farmers to obtain immediate payment. It is necessary for the farmers to be protected, as they are the fundamental basis of the prosperity of the country. It is necessary that the farmers obtain all the encouragement possible so that they may enjoy the comforts they deserve for the hours of work they perform.
I would not say that the farmers are not prosperous at the present time, but I will say that we need further protection having regard to the preservation of our products. I have all confidence that the Minister of Agriculture will give his full support to obtaining refrigerating processes so that our pork, our eggs, our poultry products and so on may be displayed and sold at the proper time, and at a reasonable price, to the * benefit cf the labouring population.	.
I believe it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to study ways and means of increasing production. If we can do this, we shall be able to reduce the cost of living. It is necessary that production be increased, and this can only be done by giving credit to the farmers, as has already been done in many different ways by the Department of Agriculture. I feel that additional ways should be found of giving further protection to our farmers. May I repeat that it was a great pleasure to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, who is a farmer himself, upon handling our agricultural matters in such a way that we can produce with confidence and that prices will be well protected. The farming industry faces great problems. If our farmers are not given the necessary encouragement to induce the younger element to remain on the soil, they will not do so. Our younger population are deserting the soil because they are not receiving sufficient remuneration for the work they perform. That difficulty could be overcome by giving our farmers a guaranteed price for their products. A guaranteed price would bring about such results as would encourage them to continue farming. Regardless of what the amount of subsidies may be, we must encourage the younger element to remain on the farms; otherwise it will be a disaster for our Canadian population.
Agriculture is still the basic industry of the country. We must be prepared for an increase in population, but we must also be in a position to produce the necessary supplies for the population whom we shall be called upon to support. If our farmers

The Address-Mr. Larson receive fair prices for their products, ways and means will be found to take care of the amounts required for national defence.
Before closing my remarks I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether it will not be possible to grant subsidies to the eastern parts of the country to enable the farmers to buy fertilizer. Our farms in the east require fertilizer. They require substances to destroy the acid which is gradually appearing in our soil. If the farmers could buy fertilizer at a cheaper rate, it would assist in increasing che productivity of the soil, and enable them co sell their produce at lower prices, because with the greater production the return for the work performed would be proportionately greater. At the same time our labour population would be able to buy produce at a lower price, and one more in keeping with the salaries they receive.
May I address a few words to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is carrying on a great work in the improvement of the health of our people. Canada, like other countries, has to suffer from diseases amongst our population. It is necessary to call attention to this problem and to that of education. An unhealthy and an uneducated population is a detriment to any country. The policies which the department and the government are carrying out will help to maintain good understanding amongst the people of our country, and I am sure we are all glad to support them.	'
I believe every Canadian is willing to support the principle of taxation when necessary, and is willing to do all that is necessary so that we may maintain the principles under which the United Nations was formed and bring about good understanding and harmony amongst the nations of the world.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: In this
debate, which hinges chiefly upon defence and on the diplomatic side of our national activities, I rise not because one so new as myself can attempt to advise the people who have had long experience in these things, but the speech from the throne and the remarks of the mover of the address in reply touched on a topic which was very interesting to me and, I feel, very vital to the future conduct of world policy.
I understand that when the first atomic explosion was carried out in Nevada a large staff of men was there to try to stop any reaction which might have occurred from the explosion of the bomb. That did not happen. The atomic bomb was developed. Scientists very soon decided that possibly they could use that atomic bomb to start reaction in some less volatile substance.

Possibly the hydrogen bomb is a fact. I do not know. It has never been officially declared a fact.
Is it impossible that some day scientists may figure out a method of using the same sort of knowledge to start some inert substance such as the air we breathe, or the soil we walk on, and end the whole course of human development on this planet? Trusting, however, that things will not be quite as serious as that, we can look forward in this country to the possibility of atomic attack.
There are some people in this country who say that we are totally unprepared to meet any attack in force. Today quite a few members of parliament went down to Montreal, and there they saw something which I am sure convinced them that we are not totally unprepared, but on the contrary we are doing everything possible,. and we are doing it effectively, to protect ourselves and our friends in the Atlantic pact.
War today is a pretty terrible thing. Centuries ago Athens and Sparta, the one a democratic country and the other a military-minded country, fought it out. I suppose people a few hundred miles away from what was going on, and who were not involved, did not even realize that there was a war on; but in this day and age a major conflict between two major nations is a thing which should be absolutely unthinkable. I for one still believe and hope that the eventuality of a war, chiefly with atomic weapons, is a thing which we shall never see. What the solution is I do not know. There are a lot of people who talk about a world federation. We have some sort of world federation in the United Nations, but it has no sovereign authority. It has not a police force which is completely under the control of that body. The next thing to that we have is the Atlantic pact. That organization is in a somewhat different position, because we have recently appointed a supreme commander who will have armies and forces of various kinds under his control. Then if any nation-and probably this is unthinkable-within the Atlantic pact were to start any form of aggression, police action would be taken immediately.
If that type of thing could be developed to encompass most of the nations of the world we would have some chance of having a federation of world nations. All this may look difficult, and appear to be impossible; but I presume that the problems that beset the founders of the United States federation, and the Canadian confederation must have appeared to them to be almost insurmountable.

These matters are more or less academic.
I feel that Russia, or the international comin-form is using a weapon against us which is as old as humanity itself. It is a weapon of which we do not realize the full import- and we have good reason for not doing so. They are using this weapon chiefly in Asia at the moment, and making very good use of it indeed. The reason we do not understand it is that as a nation on this continent we have never been hungry. The cost of living is high-certainly it is high. But practically every family on the continent can set a good table and buy the clothes they need. They can house themselves, and on top of that enjoy some of the amenities of life. To the average Asiatic, the cost of living is probably beyond his earning capacity.
In the conclusions reached at the Colombo conference it was found that the average amount of food upon which the average Asiatic exists for a day is about the same as the normal adult on this side of the water would eat at any one normal meal. The amount of clothing the average Asiatic gets is far from adequate. I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the Colombo plan at this time. That plan is set out in a journal on trade and commerce, and it is available to all. The only comment I would make is that the purpose is to give technical assistance so as to increase food production in Asia. Possibly that plan should be extended to provide actual foodstuffs when there are surpluses on this hemisphere. At the present time we have in Canada among other surpluses large stocks of low-grade wheat. It is difficult to make standard milling flour out of such wheat and I am sure that probably within the next year and a half it will be sold for the consumption of livestock. With the situation in India today, I am sure the people there would be happy to have some of that wheat, even though it is not of a top milling grade. It would still provide nourishment.
In Canada we have been bothered by food surpluses from time to time. We have always felt that large surpluses on hand depressed the market and tended to bring about a recession in agriculture. The Americans have had that same difficulty, but it would seem to me that they are somewhat more advanced in their thinking. I believe they are going into "*he next crop year with several hundred million bushels of wheat in surplus. However, rather than consider it a surplus which would depress the market, they consider it as a strategic war material, and one absolutely vital if an emergency arises.
We could allow Asiatic countries to carry on as best they can, as we have done in the
The Address-Mr. Larson past. We could allow situations to develop in China, as indeed they have developed, and take no responsibility for them. We can even watch the Chinese in vast numbers joining the communist armies, perhaps as a result of having been bribed to enter those armies, with the threat of starvation if they did not come in and promise of adequate food supplies if they did. With our supremacy in technical knowledge and industrial capacity we could probably defeat those huge armies; but to organize the military strength to fight and, when the time comes, to wipe out the hordes of people in those armies would cost us vast sums of money and a great deal of hardship through having to see our people go to war.
If we want to get right down to considering this matter from a business standpoint, even if we wanted to ignore the fact that possibly we are our brothers' keeper, we could say that it would be cheaper to feed them than to fight them. That is my belief; and in that position I do not think we have any choice. I believe it is cheaper to feed them than to fight them, and I doubt if there will ever be peace until the threat of famine has been wiped from the face of the earth.
We might say we have done something in the past to provide foodstuffs for China when it was needed, and when we have had surpluses; but our tendency has been to deal through normal channels, with the big businessmen of China. I doubt very much if the average coolie has ever felt any beneficial effects from what we have done.
It is apparent that the communists have gone into China and stirred up the masses against the land owners and the wealthy people. They have given support to taking over the property of those people. There may have been enough food produced from those activities, so that the communists have not had to send very much from their own countries into China to keep the people satisfied thus far. Indeed, they have had the Chinese fighting their battles, with the only cost to Russia being that of perhaps a few aircraft and tanks. We are now in a position where, even though for a long time the Chinese have been considered our friends, we do not feel we can talk with them. However, we are still on good terms with India and with Pakistan. We are still on speaking terms with a good many other countries in southeast Asia.
In the near future it seems to me it would be to our advantage politically to give some practical indication that we are on the side of those people, that we are people of good will, and that we are prepared to help them in their troubles. It could be said that this

The Address-Mr. Larson continent simply has not the ability to feed Asia. I agree. But there is no doubt in my mind that we could vastly increase production on this continent. In fact, there are several projects we could construct which would have the effect of increasing production. There is development work we could do. There are lands in northern British Columbia, in the Peace River district where the rainfall is adequate and where the soil is suitable, but where at the present time there are no settlers. If that were not sufficient we could go ahead with the South Saskatchewan river project and 400,000 acres of submarginal land could be brought into production to produce a lot of food.
Industrial skill can do a tremendous lot to make our position more secure, but well-fed people normally do not want to join armies to fight. We should not rest in our endeavours as a highly developed civilization until we see the world completely inhabited with well-fed people. With the international situation being as it is I do not see how we can afford not to do everything possible with our industrial ability to see that our friends have what is necessary for them to fight in defence of our way of life.
But there is a danger that if we place too much strain on our internal economy and spread ourselves too thin we will not be effective in international affairs. That great Canadian, the late W. L. Mackenzie King, said once that rather than making tours of the war fronts his job was to stay in Canada to see to it that our internal economy was operating to the fullest extent in order to produce things for our friends. He felt that our great strength lay in no hitches developing in this country.
At the risk of boring you I am going to say how pleased I am that the British government has considered fulfilling the "have regard to" clause in the five year wheat pool contract. I know that when that clause has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the western farmers, and I do not think their requests are unreasonable, those same western farmers will be much happier at having to pay heavy taxes in order to supply aeroplanes to Great Britain and to train air crew and do those other things which will cost much in excess of what they are asking from the British at the moment. They will be ready to do all that most willingly.
I am not going to mention any alternatives because I am confident the British government is sound and fair enough to see that justice is done. There are no other alternatives that could be mentioned at this time.
From November 20 of last year to January 13 of this year my information indicates that some $39,900,000 of defence contracts were


issued in Canada. I have not the Alberta figures but the contracts in Manitoba amounted to $1,200,000 with only $60,000 in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan does not worry about defence contracts to any great degree because the people do not feel that that is their role. They feel that their place in the national economy is the providing of that strategic material, food. If that material is not supplied everything else breaks down.
I have heard it said that the Saskatchewan farmers are making so much money that they do not know what to do with it. I have heard it said in high places that prosperity is judged by income tax collections. It must be realized that Saskatchewan is primarily an agricultural province and its primary production is wheat which is sold to the wheat board. The wheat board is an agency of government and the income tax department is a department of government. It is reasonable to expect that information passes back and forth and the experts are able by means of mathematical calculations to tell what it costs to run a farm. With that factor in mind it is easy for those who collect income taxes to assess and collect all that is coming to the federal government in these taxes.
Another fact to be remembered is that those who pay large income taxes farm large tracts of land. They have been fortunate enough to obtain those tracts of land and are thus able to produce more economically than the small farmer. Consequently most of the income tax is paid by a small group of people in Saskatchewan. The great majority of the people in Saskatchewan fall into that other class which do not enjoy the same prosperity.
In closing I want to say that I support the policy of the government as laid down last night by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his speech during this debate. I feel that with the lead given by those two men and their associates we will have the best possible guarantee we could get that we will have a smooth-working, well-integrated internal economy which will allow this country to produce the way we saw it producing today in Montreal. I have great faith that with a smoothly integrated economy and with large defence production we can do our part to carry out our obligations in connection with affairs that lie ahead. But I wish to stress that we must keep our own internal affairs solid so that it will be possible for us to give the most to our friends.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against the amendment to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment to the amendment negatived.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Cold-well) negatived on division.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I think at this time the Canadian people are concerned about two serious problems. The first is the very serious international situation and the second is the constantly rising cost of living. Before I proceed to deal with my main topic this evening I wish to say that I heartily endorse the remarks made by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) concerning the present international situation. I also endorse the excellent and incisive speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) in connection with the same question. In 1941 it had become apparent to the government of the day that something had to be done to curb the pressures on the economy due to the rapid expansion which had taken place at that time, and the gradual absorption of formerly unemployed resources into the stream of production. For various reasons the government decided that monetary and fiscal policies alone were insufficient to curb inflationary tendencies. Two alternatives faced the government at that time. The first was selective controls confined to a few basic commodities and the second was an over-all price ceiling on all goods and services with accompanying production and distribution controls.
The minister of finance of that day stated in the house on November 6, 1941, that the government had chosen the latter alternative. The introduction of the over-all price ceiling was announced by the prime minister of that day on October 18, 1941, and came into effect on December 1, 1941. As we all know, price ceilings were based on prices in the period from September 15 to October 11, 1941.
There is no question that at the conclusion of the war the Canadian people realized the advantages of price control legislation and the advantages of certain necessary subsidies to equalize and stabilize the cost of living. Canadians realized that price control was effective. They realized it was successful, and I think that generally speaking the Canadian people fully appreciated the value
The Address-Mr. Herridge of that policy. In addition to the people, the Liberal government of that day realized that the Canadian people were in favour of price controls and had realized their effectiveness, their successful operation, and their advantage to the large majority of working people of this country.
They realized that to such an extent that they based their election appeal of 1945 to some extent upon the value of the price control policy to the Canadian people prior to that date.


An hon. Member:: And nearly got beat.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member who interrupted me is not going to massage his ego by constant inane, innocuous and inconsequential interruptions. I should like to quote a few statements! made by leaders of the Liberal party and by the Liberal party itself just prior to the election of 1945, realizing as they did the opinion of the Canadian people with respect to the Liberal party price control policy during the war, which we all admit was excellent. The late prime minister, Right Hon'. Mackenzie King, in an article in Maclean's magazine of February 1, 1945, had this to say:
Immediately after the war the dangers of inflation may be even greater than they are now. The Canadian people cannot afford to sacrifice the benefits of wartime stabilization by relaxing controls too soon.
In the Halifax Herald and other dailies of June 5, 1945, nation-wide Liberal advertising contained the following:
Consumer goods soon to be available at 1941 prices.
Again in the Halifax Herald and other dailies of June 5, 1945, Liberal advertising contained the following:
Price ceiling-the purchasing power of your dollars maintained by the price ceiling under careful Liberal management.
Again nation-wide Liberal advertising in the dailies throughout this country on June 5, 1945, contained the following:
New low-cost housing . . . instalments as low as $9.58 per month under the new national housing plan.
My point in commenting on the advertisements of that date is to illustrate the fact that the government was fully aware of the opinion of the Canadian people with respect to their policy of price control and necessary subsidies that was in effect during the war. We find that, although election advertising and election literature of that time indicated the continuance of the price control policy, that policy was changed some seven months later. On January 31,	1946, the Prime

The Address-Mr. Herridge Minister announced the government's decontrol policy and on February 1, 1946, the first actual decontrol of prices took place on a long list of items, although few were necessities of life. This action continued until well on in the summer. Wage controls were eliminated by the end of the year. From that time on, the Canadian people have been subjected to constantly rising prices.
As we all know, the cost of living has gone up and up. By the end of 1948 complete decontrol had practically been accomplished. Under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, originally passed in 1945, the dominion government had been enabled to retain authority over prices, production, distribution and rental controls, but at each successive session of parliament this power was restricted until today the only powers remaining with the government under this act are those over rents.
Rising prices between the early part of 1946 and the latter part of 1948 created such a disturbance and such protests throughout the country that the government was forced to give some consideration to public opinion in that regard. In February, 1948, when, as the result of decontrol, prohibition of certain imports from the United States and other factors, prices were soaring, there was a great outcry for the reinstitution of price control legislation. The government's answer was to set up a House of Commons committee to study the question. We all remember the lengthy sittings of that committee and the report it made. Then a royal commission was established to find out why prices were going up. I remember sitting in this house and hearing the then member for Cariboo, Mr. William Irvine, saying when the commission was being established that it was like the government witnessing someone drowning. Instead of trying to prevent the tragedy they appointed a committee to find out where the water came from.
The royal commission reported on March 18, 1949, after investigating a number of industries. Although the investigation of the commission did not bring prices down by so much as a cent, they did come to some significant conclusions. Before proceeding with my brief remarks this evening I want to quote from their report to indicate some of the conclusions which, as I said before, are most significant for the Canadian people. In volume I, pages 27 and 28, dealing with monopolistic conditions, the commission reported as follows:
The tendency appears to be for monopolistic enterprises to try to protect themselves from the "peaks and valleys" of the business cycle by obtaining for themselves a stable price over a period of time, the net result of which is generally to place

the average price of their goods in the long run above what would be the average competitive level.
That is an example of the operation of the free enterprise system. Then the section dealing with mark-ups is very interesting for those interested in studying this important subject. Again I quote from volume 1, page 26:
In our investigations we found that it was general for the distributive trades to maintain the same fixed percentage mark-ups on their various lines of merchandise as their costs rose, and that the effect of this practice was to increase prices to the consumer much more than a dollar and cent mark-up would. Where a fixed percentage mark-up is used by the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer, an initial cost increase at the manufacturing level is pyramided through the entire price structure . . .
I could give much lengthier quotations, but I am just giving a few to illustrate my point. Dealing with bread the report had this to say at page 29 of volume 1:
The margins now being established appear to be out of proportion with the margins that would exist under competitive conditions on a fast moving packaged food such as bread.
There again the obvious implication is that under this so-called free enterprise system we have a monopoly control avoiding the effects of even proper competition. Then, dealing with the situation concerning livestock, the report has this to say at page 31 of volume 1:
The very heavy capital investment required, together with decreasing cost ratio as the scale of the business expands, tends to keep additional competitors from entering the field . . .
Again there is the implication of monopolistic control in order to maintain prices; yet we are told repeatedly that members on the government side and members on the opposition side support a free enterprise economy. I have a few other references before I go on. The report of the commission dealing with monopolies in textiles has this to say, at page 33 of volume 1:
The returns on capital for the nylon producers and the second mentioned rayon manufacturer were, by any standard, very high indeed.
You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that this was the standard established by the royal commission. Again I quote from the report of the commission dealing with fertilizer monopolies, at page 33 of volume 1:
One firm, following decontrol, raised its domestic prices to export levels and more than tripled its percentage of net profits to capital employed between 1946 and early in 1948.


Mr. Gibson:: How did they compete with you?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought I had finished with the hon. member, but apparently I have not. The point is that these advantages were taken of the Canadian people immediately following

the abolition of price control and the dropping of necessary subsidies. I could give many other references to show the advantage taken by many firms in this country of that policy of decontrol, but let us see what happened after the change of policy on the part of the government of the day. To illustrate, while the general wholesale price index went up 52 per cent between July, 1946, and July, 1950, the index of the wholesale prices of farm products went up only 35 per cent. This fact was also discovered by the royal commission on prices and led them to state in the report of March 18, 1949, at page 25 of volume 1:
Since the end of the war, farm products prices have risen less than prices of most other groups in the wholesale index. Yet, because the cost of foods has risen so sharply during this period, this fact is often overlooked. The chief explanation for the apparent anomaly is to be found in the removal of food subsidies which kept food prices down during the war.
Price control is a policy to which this party has been advocating that the government return since the change in 1946. I think there is no question as to which party in this house has been correct since that time with respect to price controls and necessary subsidies. Now I want to quote a short table to illustrate the
The Address-Mr. Herridge effect of this policy of decontrol upon the farmers of this country, because sometimes we hear it said that the policy of price control and subsidies is urged largely by industrial groups or workers in urban centres. Let us see what effect it has had upon the farmers. This table shows the increases in percentages between July, 1946, and July, 1950:
Per cent
Gasoline	 18-3
Mower, 5-foot	 22-4
Grain binder, 8-foot, 4-horse	 29-0
2-furrow plow	 36-8
Combine, 6-foot	 40 1
Tractor, 4-cylinder, 4-ply tires	 44-7
Electrical fixtures and equipment	 56-3
Hardware	 56'5
Binder twine	 135-8
What further argument is necessary for the reimposition of certain subsidies and necessary price controls?
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it eleven o'clock; and 1 move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
15S
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 7, 1951